Analyzing the Emmys' Snubs, Predicting an Emmy Upset, Reacting to William Petersen's CSI Departure, and More!
Dominic West,The Wire
Question: As I looked at the Emmy nominations, the title of
your recent Dispatch kept running through my head: They
did get our hopes up again. I'm thrilled that
Mad Men got several key nominations, that
Lost was nominated for best drama, that Michael Emerson most deservedly got a nod, that
Desperate Housewives was limited to guest actress nods, that Kristen Chenoweth — who lights up the screen — got a nod and that
Survivor didn't make the cut in reality competition (yay,
Top Chef!). But I am disappointed again to no end.
Friday Night Lights only gets a casting nod? Don't get me wrong, I love its casting, but what about its writing, its direction, its cinematography and, of course, its excellent acting that for some reason never gets noticed? And
The Wire only gets a writing nod? Six dramas were nominated for Outstanding Drama, and
Friday Night Lights and
The Wire aren't among them? I guess we are lucky that there are so many excellent dramas available that some don't make the cut, but again with
Boston Legal? Ugh. And no
Pushing Daisies for Outstanding Comedy? For every one nomination that they seem to have gotten right this year, there's another nomination with which they have completely missed the mark. Was this a frustrating list for you, too? Do you think that they are getting it right more often now than, say, five years ago?
— Erin
Matt Roush: Yes to both of your questions. Year after year after year, the Emmys almost can't help but be frustrating. With so much TV out there, and so many great dramas in particular, there are simply too many opportunities for omission. This year is no exception, but I'll be honest and say that, as reflected in
my Dispatch on Emmy day, this year's list aggravates me far less than most — with a few notable, awful exceptions. I mean, just look at that drama category.
Mad Men and
Damages: basic-cable breakthroughs and both truly excellent series.
Dexter: What a shock that the Emmy voters set aside their squeamishness to acknowledge the second season's brilliance.
Lost: back on the list (at the expense, I'm thinking, of
Grey's Anatomy, which deserved to sit out a year) after a thrilling comeback season. Four home runs out of six isn't bad.
House: an example of the Emmys as popularity contest, nominating a show repeatedly even in an uneven year that wasn't truly worthy. But
Boston Legal? At this point, I just give up. I'm not as worked up about it this year — unlike last year, when my reaction at the Emmys announcement was so apoplectic that awards guru Tom O'Neil still rags me about it — because I'm simply resigned to the fact that a large segment of the Hollywood creative community gets off on this show. They love being pandered to, and they bite every single year. By comparison,
The Wire and
Friday Night Lights apparently act like castor oil to these people, as if these wonderful dramas are too "good for you" to actually be good. It's absurd and depressing, but as last Thursday morning drew near, I told myself that as long as
Mad Men got its due — and did it ever, with more nominations than any other drama — I wouldn't throw quite so predictable a hissy fit over the invevitable snubs regarding those shows that for whatever reason never found their way onto the Emmy radar.
Question: Something has been weighing on me regarding the Emmys ignoring
The Wire in years past, but the most recent nominations just confirmed in my eyes. I can't help but compare the treatment of
Mad Men to that of
The Wire. I love
Mad Men, and now that
The Wire has finished its run, it's easily the best show still on TV. However, it is rather curious how it took them no time to embrace
Mad Men, yet they had no trouble ignoring one of the most acclaimed shows in TV history for five years. Both shows are low-rated cable dramas that received massive critical buzz. One could even reasonably claim that
The Wire had an industry advantage — it was on a network with more credibility and even had more viewers than
Mad Men, as impossible as that may seem. One has to conclude that what made the academy acknowledge one show and not another is a matter of content (or at least perception of content), and when you go there, you go into territory that is considerably ugly. You have to start considering things like the characters on
Mad Men are rich, dapper and affluent white people, while
The Wire has a cast that is 60 to 70 percent black, many of the impoverished, criminal or just plain unsavory variety. Maybe I'm being way off base here, but this seems like an elephant in the room situation. The bottom line is that when your kind (critics) called attention to
Mad Men, they stood up and immediately took notice in a way that they never came close to for
The Wire. It seems like there are exceptions to most of the other conventional theories.
Damages and
Lost put to bed the "plot's too complex" theory, and
Lost seems a pretty significant exception to the "not filmed in NY or LA" theory. So what factor do you think made the Academy respond to the buzz of
Mad Men with, "Hey, I better get to watching that," but respond to the buzz of
The Wire with, "Eh, it's not for me"? Can it really be dismissed as a coincidence that the most ignored great show of all time is also one of the most prominently black shows of all time?
— Andrew
Matt Roush: You make some excellent and provocative points here. For me, there's no question that The Wire and Mad Men are both masterpieces, but there's also no question that one creates a much more inviting world than the other. Mad Men is evocative and mysterious and has plenty to say about the sexism and racism of the early '60s, but it's also gorgeous (not gritty, despite the smoke) and witty (as opposed to profane). And while it does have a dark and cynical side, it's much more seductive and nowhere near as bleak and unsparing in tone as The Wire. It's not entirely a matter of race and class, although you'd have to be blind not to consider these as factors, but more an issue of what might be perceived as entertainment value, as shallow as that sounds. And when it comes to honoring great work, it really is a condemnation of the myopia inherent in the Emmy process that The Wire faced such resistance from the membership through its entire run.
Question: OK, I just had to say this.
The Wire — in my opinion the greatest television series that has ever aired — has received a total (a total!) of
two Emmy nominations in its history. One for writing in 2005 and one for writing this year. Meanwhile, A&E's horrific
The Andromeda Strain received
seven this year.
Two And A Half Men: seven.
Dancing With the Stars: eight! I'm going to go over to the corner and weep for a while.
— Matt
Matt Roush: Yes, that's a truly shameful statistic. It would almost be funny if it weren't so tragic. But your anger at these other nominees is slightly misplaced. None of them took away slots that would have gone to The Wire, being that they're in the easily maligned genres of comedy, reality and hokey miniseries, where the competition is much less intense (and in the case of movies and minis, almost nonexistent). More upsetting should be the seven nominations going to Boston Legal, the two going to Nip/Tuck, and so on.
Question: Okay, I officially give up. Please explain the Emmy fascination with
Boston Legal. Not that it's a terrible show, but Best Drama every single year when shows like
The Wire are ignored? Please, I need an explanation, and I am counting on you to deliver. Thanks and love the column.
— Leigh
Matt Roush: In the first wave of Emmy reactions, this and the
Wire snub were easily the most common complaints. So let me step back and try to put this in some context. I am often accused of having a vendetta against
Boston Legal, which I agree is not a terrible show. The reason it's a target is because it is lauded by the Emmys and others far beyond its status as an over-the-top and often shameless guilty pleasure. I'd probably have less problem with it if it stayed where it rightly belongs in the comedy category. A few months ago, I used the episode in which Alan Shore argued in front of the Supreme Court, and to a lesser degree the episode dealing with the death of Shirley's father, as a peg on which to write an
analysis of the show's appeal and why for all its merits, I found it lacking. My conclusion then, and I still hold to it: "What revisiting
Boston Legal the last few weeks has reminded me is that when this show delivers actual dramatic meat, it can be savory indeed. But all too often, it settles for smarmy little table scraps of inane nonsense that some may consider a hoot, but which I can't help but see as a childish waste of a potentially tremendous franchise." I don't know if any of this explains the Emmy voters' unabashed love for the show, but I'll add that David E. Kelley, even at his most excessive, writes juicy roles for actors, and they love him for it. I find even the best of the show to be insufferably pandering more often than not, but others eat it up like candy and are obviously willing to reward it.
Question: Remember back at the 1999 Emmy awards, when the year's most critically acclaimed cable series lost the Outstanding Drama Series trophy to a David E. Kelley legal series? Well, brace yourself, because nine years later, it's going to happen again. The only difference: This year's critically-acclaimed gem is not
The Sopranos (it's
Mad Men), and the Kelley series is not
The Practice (it's
Boston Legal). Anybody who thinks that
Boston Legal doesn't have a serious shot at winning TV's biggest award is about to get a big surprise come September when the awards are handed out. Mark my words — it's going to happen. Best to start preparing yourselves now.
— Marcus
Matt Roush: Thanks, pal, for ruining my Monday. But maybe your dredging up one of the more embarrassing moments in Emmy history will remind everyone how awful it would be should they repeat it. (Not that The Practice didn't deserve its earlier wins; just not in the year that introduced The Sopranos to TV.)
Question: I read
the news that William Petersen will cut back his time at
CSI and won't be on air as much through the end of the series. Yet as I read the online reactions, I was surprised the news was taken as Petersen is gone when he isn't. He is just cutting back, which, given how long he has been with the show, does not spell disaster. What is your take to the fan reaction to the Petersen news?
— Christy
Matt Roush: I haven't been tracking the fan reaction, but I wouldn't be surprised that they're alarmed and dismayed at losing the star of a favorite show that has been part of a weekly (and in syndication, daily) habit for so many years. It's the equivalent of if Sam Waterston were to depart Law & Order (albeit with an open-door policy). But it's also not as if this were a complete surprise, given that Petersen has already taken one sabbatical within a season, indicating his desire to move on. And while the exact circumstances of his departure and continued participation aren't all nailed down, sounds to me like you're in a bit of denial. For all intents and purposes, after the midpoint of this season, Grissom will no longer be a CSI regular, and that will require some serious readjustment to the popular formula. I doubt it will prove fatal for the show, but it is without doubt a turning point.
Question: What are the chances that
Swingtown will survive after this summer run? I know the ratings haven't been stellar, but surely CBS realizes it's pulling in a demo like few other shows on the network. I, for one, don't watch any other CBS show beside
The New Adventures of Old Christine. I almost wish I could hate
Swingtown so I won't be disappointed when/if CBS pulls the plug. But I seem to love it more and more each week, especially Miriam Shor's Emmy-worthy turn as repressed super-homemaker Janet.
— Jack
Matt Roush: For me, Janet seems an awfully thankless role, but then, I'm not much of a fan of the show, though as a summer diversion, CBS could do (and has done) far worse. I wouldn't bet on a second season for Swingtown for several reasons. As I've said before, I don't think there's anywhere on the regular in-season prime-time schedule where it would fit or thrive, and I expect it's too expensive to keep producing just for summer, when reality fluff like CBS's Great American Dog is so much more cost-effective. And, wierdly, popular.
Question: Brothers & Sisters has seen its fair share of drama and tragedy over the last two seasons, but the one place they have yet to go is the death of one of the Walker children. Given that Balthazar Getty is getting his fair share of bad press lately (which he totally deserves, by the way) and the character of Tommy is underused and normally just a background character in an increasingly overcrowded cast, I can't help but wonder: Are Getty's, and thus Tommy's, days numbered? It actually could be a decent storyline and would give every actor material that they would knock out of the park.
— Katelyn
Matt Roush: Remind me not to get on your bad side. Tabloid headlines aside, the only thing I've heard so far is from a video interview creator Greg Berlanti gave Television Week in which he teased that they're developing a "very special" episode that may air without commercials in which there would be either a near-death or actual death experience for one of the characters. No hint as to who, but I agree the Tommy character is the show's least developed and least interesting — his fling with the office girl packed about as much heat as a mild blizzard — and thus, the most expendable. Still, I'm not sure that's just cause to root for his or anyone's demise.
Question: I see that Smash and Jason Street will be in just a few episodes of this season of
Friday Night Lights. I know that for the show to progress realistically, the characters must move on. The show can't keep bouncing back and forth between Smash in college and stay faithful to the Dillon Panthers. I have loved the writing on this show since day one, and I'm going to stay optismistic, but do you think losing two main characters that were so integral to the show will hurt or help this fan favorite? Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
— Nathan D.
Matt Roush: I'm not sure anything can hurt or help the show at this point, but Friday Night Lights is, if nothing else, authentic in capturing the rhythms of small-town life, and that means characters coming and going as they mature and move on, which seems organic to the stories of both characters (not to mention realistic in terms of budget realities in this curtailed third season, with costs being shared with DirecTV). As long as Smash and Jason are written out with the integrity and dignity that have long been hallmarks of the show, I would think fans would be satisfied, if understandably saddened.
Question: I was thinking, with the new season of
Project Runway upon us, why have
Runway and
Top Chef been such big hits, while Bravo's other reality contest shows,
Shear Genius and
Step It Up & Dance, are such stinkers? Is it the production values, or the choice of hosts and judges? (For me, Elizabeth Berkeley made
Step It Up & Dance unwatchable.) When the shows are on the same network and have such similar looks and formats, it's strange that some would be so good and others so bad. (And not in the "so bad it's good" way.)
— Jen K.
Matt Roush: In the world of reality, as in all other forms of TV, overfamiliarity eventually breeds contempt. As Bravo keeps cloning shows off the Runway and Top Chef models, invariably there will be some duds in the mix. Happens all the time on any network that keeps churning out the same sort of show as if on an assembly line (see the CW). The real concern here is that overextending the brand could do some real harm by diluting the appeal of the original shows that put Bravo on the map. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet.
