I suppose letting the show pass without comment here would be in itself a
profound comment, but I will make the obligatory post, for the hypothetical
record.

Even within the well known limitations of awards shows, the Emmys have been
problematic for a long time. As our old Chief AB pointed out years ago,
allowing shows and actors that have won repeatedly to compete against new
shows is inherently asymmetrical (I think "The Godfather" is the best film
ever made, but it would be unsatisfying if it were awarded the Oscar for
Best Picture every year). And often the tastes of Emmy voters seem safe and
overly mainstream, so that it is more like "The Help" is winning for Best
Picture every year. They still have the first problem (I love Veep and JLD,
but maybe, in a modification of AB's solution, at least they should have a
rule that you have to wait like three years to win again for the same role
or show); however they are getting better at the second problem, and the
winners last night were pretty interesting;  e.g. - I am among those who
think the award to Tatiana Maslany is both deserved and over due.

(For a complete list of winners, see:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-emmys-2016-nominees-winners-list-20160714-snap-story.html
)

I did not like the OJ Mini-Series nearly as much as most people seem to
have, but at least they got the acting winners right (IMO) - especially
Vance, who for my money owned and saved that show. However, Paulson's
speech (and use of her Plus One) to try to rehabilitate Marcia Clark
confirmed most of my suspicions about her performance and the show itself.
OJ is most likely a double-murderer, and the trial made fools out of almost
everyone who was touched by it, but any honest telling of that story has
got to make the point that the central villains (in the trial) were the
LAPD (and its incompetent crime scene technicians and corrupt detectives)
and the County DA - especially Clark. Anyone who thinks there was more than
enough evidence to convict OJ (and I am not at all sure this is true) has
to also believe that the prosecutors bungled the job - and most of the key
mistakes were Clark's. But Paulson did a good job portraying her, and I
don't begrudge her the Emmy.

The Emmy Show itself was actually not that bad. The opening used an
approach which was fresh when Billy Crystal first did it, but by now is as
cliched and trite as the old song and dance numbers they used to do. But
given that, it was fine. Kimmel's jokes were sharp, but he consistently
referred to "We" and "Us", which I think helps the stars in the audience
feel less like they are being attacked by an outsider. Even though the show
ended pretty much on time, it felt like there was space for the speeches to
be somewhat heartfelt and spontaneous. I do not like the continuing award
show trend of pre-recording the names of the nominees, and showing
photographs of them, not live shots from the audience.

I do wish my favorite show, "The Americans" and "Fargo" had gotten more
love, but at least they were nominated.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to