Sep 12 2007
Emmy Gets It So Wrong and Oscar Gets It So Right
I admit it. I am entertainment whore. I love my movies. I love my TV. I love my music. And I am completely pretentious about my tastes in all of the above (though my confidence in my pretentiousness has a lower level of force when it comes to music). And so, as with many other pretentious I-can-separate-the-wheat-from-the-chafe mediaphiles like myself, I can be a real sucker for the award shows. However, my prioritization of the big three have always been pretty solid: It goes like this:
1. Oscar
*big friggin’ gaping space*
2. Emmy
*smaller separation*
3. Grammy
I’m going to get one thing out of the way real quick, I know I mentioned the Grammy’s up above, but seeing as none of the music I listen to is remotely mainstream (remember, pretentious) and if artists I like ever get nominations, those awards are never televised, I haven’t watched the Grammy’s since before I was legally allowed to drive, so I’m not going to even attempt to comment on them to the level of the other two (that’s why they were at the bottom of the list). Moving on…
The Oscars have always been more accessible to me. Only so many movies get nominated in a year and as an avid cinemaphile, most of them I’ve seen or have some interest in seeing, way before the Academy puts their two cents in. Conversely, it’s much more time consuming (and, in the case of the Grammy’s, friggin’ expensive) to watch a year’s worth of television or music. And while there have been plenty of severe oversights and missteps perpetrated by the Oscars just in the last decade, I find that the nominating bodies of the Emmy’s and Grammy’s are far less in tune with the type of entertainment that appeals to me.
But let’s set aside the debates on why Gladiator was ever deemed to be worthy of the Best Picture of the year award or the fact that Emmy seems intent on convincing the world that Two and Half Men really is worth a half hour of your time each week, and focus on the central purpose of these award shows. At their core, they’re pageants. Box office numbers, Nielsen ratings, and Billboard charts superseded quality long ago. As an audience, the public en masse, doesn’t care who a bunch of industry insiders think is “the best.” They know what they like and the only reason they bother to tune into these things is to see pretty people in pretty clothes, the occasional witty or touching acceptance speech that they can crib when they perform their own in front of the mirror late at night, and maybe – if they’re lucky – some entertaining peripheral matter provided by the host. The actual recipients of awards only serve as a catalyst for family debates about which show is truly better, Boston Legal or Grey’s Anatomy.
And so I come to the element that can turn any overpriced, overhyped red carpet porn extravaganza into something that actually may be worth watching 10% of the time…the host. A few months ago, I was shocked, appalled, and really quite disgusted by the announcement that the Emmy awards would be hosted by none other than the boil on American Idol’s ass, Ryan Seacrest. I mean, seriously, does anybody actually like this guy? I only watched the first full season of AI, and a little bit of the second, but I never got the impression that the public had really warmed to him since then. I mean, did the Emmy’s blow their budget on a diamond-encrusted fireworks display and only have $50 left for a host? Because, at this point, all I’ve really been able to determine about Ryan Seacrest is that he’ll do anything to get his mug all over your television every possible second of the day, no matter what they make him do once he’s there. He’s a glorified Access Hollywood host. People like this were never meant to host major award shows. What’s he going to do to entertain the public in between Tony Shalhoub and William Shatner’s acceptance speeches? What talent has he displayed in the tenure of his television career that made someone decide this was the way to go? His most entertaining AI moments are when Simon makes fun of him and I’ve heard no plans to have the saucy Brit sitting in the front row judging Seacrest’s hair and wardrobe throughout the event. I have to come accept the sad facts that Emmy never awarded the brilliance of Joss Whedon, the comic timing of Lauren Graham, and completely overlooked Deadwood this year…but now it’s all starting to make a certain amount of sense. They obviously have no idea what makes good television if they can’t manage to put only a few hours of it capable hands.
But then, there was Oscar. My dear old buddy Oscar who repeatedly disappoints me, but yet, I keep coming back for more like a battered housewife (seriously, Gladiator?!?). Oscar’s been trying on new hosts for years, dumping them, only to run back to them a few years later when the most recent flirtation didn’t work out quite as planned…all the while lusting after its one true paramour – Billy Crystal. The last three ceremonies have brought in some new blood, while the previous nine have been a musical chairs routine of Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg, and Steve Martin (who never got enough credit for his brilliant turn in the first post-9/11 show). And while Chris Rock and Ellen DeGeneres have been comic favorites of mine, I was never so elated as when Oscar chose Jon Stewart to be its prom date for 2006. The Daily Show host was at the peak of his popularity as audiences far and wide discovered that just because the world sucks and keeps getting suckier, doesn’t mean you can’t laugh at it. By choosing Stewart as their host, the Oscars were also making a sound political statement. Granted, that statement wasn’t particularly radical, given that most people view Hollywood as left of left, but it’s hard deny that plucking your host from a cable television show that pokes fun and criticizes a war-time president is a far cry from selecting one of the hosts of Comic Relief to sing about the Best Picture nominees. As with any Oscar host performance, Stewart’s debut was very loudly panned by several critics (can anyone remember when someone’s hosting duties were actually commended…cuz I’m drawing a blank). Some thought he was too political, while some thought it wasn’t enough. For me, Stewart ranked second behind the aforementioned Steve Martin show. It wasn’t perfect, but then, after the opening monologue, the host of the Oscars is really only seen every 30 minutes or so to try to distract you from the fact that they’re drawing this shit out as long as they possibly can (reality shows have perfected this technique).
Today it was announced that Jon Stewart will again be hosting the Oscars. And while I know that it’s likely Gil Cates will fall out of love with him the second he says “Goodnight and thank you for watching” and hire Rosie O’Donnell or Kathy Griffin to take up the mantel in 2009, I can’t help but feel satisfied and look forward to the show in February. Unlike Emmy, Oscar still understands something of the business of show and unlike Oscar, Emmy will not have me as a viewer this awards season.
