Emmys 2009: More Nominees, More Griping

The 2009 Emmy nominations were announced recently. Maybe two or three of you were wondering why I didn't do a big critique like last year. I admit that I spend far too much time watching and thinking about TV for someone who doesn't get paid to do so, but the fact is, life intruded: I was a little too wrapped up with my monthly deadline stuff at work to comment at the time, but I'm not going to do another elaborate four-part assessment. While it was a good exercise for me, it was also really time-consuming, and I don't think I want to get that deep into it anyway. But I will run through the highs and lows of this year's choices.

First, the television academy did a very smart thing by selecting Neil Patrick Harris to host this year's ceremony, especially after last year's disastrous tag-team reality-show-host clusterfuck. (Hopefully, the loud and clear message from that was "NEVER AGAIN.") NPH has been on a bit of a roll the past few years, with his hilarious appearances as a funhouse-mirror caricature of himself in the Harold and Kumar movies, his role as Barney on the genuinely funny CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother, a respectable turn as guest host of Saturday Night Live during this past season, and his recent gig hosting the Tony Awards, which I didn't see (I'm sure you're shocked) but was well received. He is the perfect choice to host the Emmys this year.

Now, the nominees: it seems like the majority of the academy has finally gotten access to a full package of basic and premium cable TV service, or maybe its membership is just getting a little younger, but the nominees are skewed even more toward non-broadcast channels than previously. I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing, because it reminds the broadcast networks that they aren't getting the job done well enough, which will hopefully spur some of the genuine creativity and risk-taking network TV so desperately needs. (Oh, who am I kidding, they'd just end up canceling it.)

The categories have been expanded to allow for six nominees instead of the previous five, and in the best drama and best comedy series categories, there were ties so there ended up being seven nominees each. This resulted in oddities like Lost getting a drama nom. As much as I love Lost, I don't think this season was quite as worthy; the time-travel business that dominated the season's storytelling was confusing and ultimately became tedious, and I think it detracted from the show's impact. Maybe the academy was trying to make up for last season, which I thought was superior to this one, but that sort of strategy usually doesn't work. If the academy really wants to show Lost the love it deserves, they need to start nominating the actors, like I said last year. (At least Michael Emerson got another nod for Ben, but that isn't really enough.)

Same goes for House. This season's "Wilson de-friends House, then they kiss and make up" and "Cuddy realizes her dream of being a mom by adopting a baby, then stresses out from trying to balance work and motherhood" storylines just didn't equal last season's "House gets a new team" (I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I thought those were great episodes) and "Wilson's true love dies a horrible and tragic death" arcs. The academy was probably responding to this season's Kutner suicide story and its aftermath; after all, shows don't get nominated based on an entire season's body of work, but rather on a kind of highlight reel.

House will likely keep getting nominated as long as it's on the air, unless the quality really tanks, but it's a different playing field. Ten years ago it would have cleaned up, but I think it's always going to be a bridesmaid in the best drama category as long as it's up against top-quality cable shows like the rest of this year's nominees: Big Love, Breaking Bad, Damages, Dexter, and Mad Men. (Damages wasn't as compelling this year, might have been nice to see The Wire get some respect on its last time around instead.)

In drama acting, no offense to Simon Baker (nominated for CBS's cutesy crime procedural The Mentalist), but you don't deserve to be in the company of your fellow nominees. I watched your show a few times, and it's popcorn, pure and simple. My mom likes it. I call this Patricia Arquette Syndrome, after her puzzling nomination (and win) for Medium in 2005. It's an okay show, but I actually find Ms. Arquette to be a rather poor actress, so I wondered what the academy was seeing that I wasn't. Same goes for Baker, who is certainly TV-pretty and has clearly found the right vehicle, but his performance on the show is style over substance. Will Bryan Cranston win again after his surprise upset last year? Will Jon Hamm get the nod instead? Will both of them be overshadowed by Gabriel Byrne? I think it's got to be one of those three.

Turning to the ladies, this year's group of nominees is exactly the same as last year's, with one notable difference: the expansion to six nominees allows the addition of Elisabeth Moss, who plays up-and-coming copywriter Peggy Olson on Mad Men. Peggy is the dark-mirror doppelganger to Don Draper. She's every bit as ambitious, and in the structure and context of Mad Men's changing workplace milieu, it's clear she represents the future. As the show progresses, I'm finding her the most interesting character, and she was truly amazing in a couple of scenes last season. But I consider Peggy a supporting character, and I don't understand why January Jones, who plays Don's increasingly aggrieved and unhinged wife Betty, wasn't given this spot. (Again, I said this last year, and if anything Jones was even better this year.) I think Ms. Moss would have been a front-runner in the supporting actress category, but up against an entrenched crop of leads, her chances are slim.

Supporting actors: good to see John Slattery get noticed for Mad Men; although Roger doesn't seem to do much besides drink and philander, Slattery embodies him in a thoroughly entertaining way, plus he's been around and paying his dues as an actor for a long time. William Hurt on Damages: sort of obligatory, had a couple of nice moments. Aaron Paul on Breaking Bad: nice job. Wait, two nominations from Boston Legal? TWO? Jesus Mary and Joseph on a sesame seed bun, what is wrong with these academy voters? Michael Emerson, it's on you to put a stop to it.

Supporting actresses: what's interesting here are the nominations of Rose Byrne, who plays Patty Hewes's young protege on Damages, and Cherry Jones as President Taylor on 24. Interesting because I didn't think either of them did an especially good job, but sometimes that doesn't matter. The competition is from Grey's Anatomy (Chandra Wilson and Sandra Oh, just like last year) and In Treatment (Dianne Wiest, nominated again, Hope Davis for the first time). Wiest won last year, and is probably the front-runner to repeat.

Okay, I guess comedy is going to have to get its own post. But just two parts this year, I swear...