Quick (?) Emmys Post-Mortem

I watched most of the Emmy awards show last night (with the exception of the half-hour from 10 to 10:30, due to an unexpected late dog-walk and a couple of other distractions). I'm left with the usual mixture of appreciation and feelings that some of the choices were misguided.

The Emmy nominations have been improving over the past couple of years, but the academy still shows signs of its tendency to lock onto a show and award it to death, even when it doesn't necessarily deserve all the acclaim. I'm referring specifically here to Modern Family, which is unquestionably a good show (something that's still all too rare on network TV these days). I have no qualms about Julie Bowen and Ty Burrell winning the comedy supporting-acting awards; they are one of TV's funniest couples, and they work so well with and off each other onscreen.

But did the academy's voters really think that Modern Family was a better, more consistently funny show overall this past season than Parks and Recreation? I've watched every episode of both shows, and it wasn't: MF was much more uneven this past season, whereas PAR hit comedy home runs every episode. I'm left wondering how much of these shows the voters have to watch to make these decisions. (Not to neglect mentioning that Nick Offerman deserved a nomination for Ron Swanson, but with all four male Modern Family actors cluttering up the category there wasn't room.)

I loved the beauty-pageant bit the nominees for comedy lead actress did, and I think Melissa McCarthy is great (she completely stole Bridesmaids), but the work she was actually nominated for was on the much more mediocre Mike & Molly, and while I don't watch the show, I've seen bits of it here and there, and I find it extremely hard to believe she was better and funnier than Amy Poehler, who will hopefully get her recognition for Parks and Rec in the future. I feel like they gave McCarthy an Emmy for her performance in a movie, which doesn't compute. (I am eager to see how she does on Saturday Night Live when she hosts in a couple of weeks.)

Steve Carell's work on The Office was also slighted. Over seven seasons he was nominated for lead comedy actor six times, and he definitely deserved to win at least once, but now that he's left the show, he'll never be able to win because the academy missed its chance; they gave it to Jim Parsons a second time, for his performance on The Big Bang Theory in a role I find rather grating and one-dimensional. Michael Scott was certainly annoying at times (maybe 50 to 60 percent of the time, during certain seasons?), but he was also unpredictable.

Here's a thought: both Big Bang and Mike & Molly are exec-produced by Chuck Lorre; was the academy bestowing awards on his other shows to try to ease the sting of the fiasco around Two And a Half Men (also a Lorre show)? If so, they may have done well to reconsider the idea of letting Mr. Tiger Blood appear to wish his former show well. Frankly, at this point I find it difficult to believe anyone in TV is willing to give that ungrateful bridge-burner (whose name I decided I didn't even want to type) the time of day, and I was dismayed to see him being given an attempt at a sort of redemption, however half-hearted and feeble it ended up sounding. I was going to suggest he grow up, but it's way too late for that, so I hope he just does us all a favor and fades away.

The academy is often trying to backpedal to make up for past oversights, and in the process they sometimes miss opportunities to bestow the awards on those who deserve them more. Friday Night Lights ended its five-season run this year, and the academy has basically ignored it all along, so they felt they had to throw lead actor Kyle Chandler a bone, and in the process Jon Hamm was denied yet again. I mean come on, did the academy voters see "The Suitcase"? The decision should have been made for them right there.

I was disappointed on behalf of Elisabeth Moss too; I've felt since the beginning of Mad Men that Peggy is in fact the most important character, because of the nature of her journey, and that journey really started gaining some direction and momentum during season four. But everyone seems to have great respect for The Good Wife and Julianna Margulies' work on it, so I hope that Moss will benefit from the academy playing catch-up to her in a future year.

The voters' best choice of the night for acting was for Margo Martindale as supporting actress in drama, for the incredible, amazing, absolutely shattering portrayal of Kentucky crime matriarch Mags Bennett on FX's Justified. As Mary McNamara wrote in the Los Angeles Times after the nominations were announced in July, "...if Martindale does not win... the academy should be disbanded." They got it right, and Martindale's acceptance speech brought a tear to my eye. Sure, it meant Christina Hendricks was denied again, but there's no question who deserved it more.

But let's be honest: the academy is never going to get it 100% right. There will never be a perfect slate of nominees, much less a perfect group of winners. Let's be thankful for what they do get right, and hope the percentages get better as the years go by. And maybe Community can get some love next year?