Emmy Awards lose luster due to lack of star power


The Emmys, supposedly the show to celebrate all the best in television, were held on a random Monday night in August this year. They were moved from their usual September date by the bigger and better ratings NBC can get with Sunday Night Football, and bullied off of their cushy football-less Sunday night slot by MTV’s Video Music Awards.

The Emmys are the relative runt of the major award shows litter, lagging far behind the Oscars, Grammys and even the non-EGOT Golden Globes in terms of ratings the last few years. It is curious that this is the case given that television is in the midst of an undeniable golden age, even surpassing film in the eyes of some in terms of the quality of its top offerings. Indeed, you would be hard-pressed to find recent feature films to challenge the sustained quality of Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.

Cooking up success · Bryan Cranston (right) won his fourth Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series for his role as Walter White in AMC’s Breaking Bad. Cranston’s co-star Aaron Paul (center) won his third Emmy Award for Outstanding Actor in a Supporting Role. - Photo courtesy of Television Academy

Cooking up success · Bryan Cranston (right) won his fourth Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series for his role as Walter White in AMC’s Breaking Bad. Cranston’s co-star Aaron Paul (center) won his third Emmy Award for Outstanding Actor in a Supporting Role. – Photo courtesy of Television Academy

 

TV’s showcase event, however, fails to even come close to the success of the Oscars. The main reason for this is simple: The draw of these shows is first and foremost about watching stars mingle with one another. The awards themselves are largely a pretense. Yes, great creative work gets recognition on national TV through these programs, but no one really thinks that these awards are always given to the ones who truly did the best in the category. For example, during Monday’s awards, after Jim Parsons was given his fourth Emmy for lead actor in a comedy series against some very stiff competition, even the acclaimed actor seemed slightly puzzled that a different nominee wasn’t recognized. (“There’s no accounting for taste.”)

No, the awards themselves are not really why people tune in. It is for seeing the stars in glamorous dresses and sharp tuxedos looking shiny together. That is why the Oscars, despite complaints every year over snubs and undeserving winners, just hit a 10-year ratings high back in March. The stars were out en masse, and with the Ellen DeGeneres selfie heard ’round the world leading the charge — at least 3.3 million retweets, over four times more than the next most retweeted tweet ever — the Oscars satisfied its audience’s wish for star power like never before. The Emmys? Not so much. The glamour of a Jolie or a Clooney on the red carpet is one thing, Aaron Paul and Julianna Margulies are another. The rare McConaughey and Julia Roberts stick out like giraffes in a flock of sheep.

Host Seth Meyers sleepwalked through the three-hour program and proved prophetic with the line in his opening monologue about jokes being like the nominees because, “they can’t all be winners.” Several of his quips elicited nothing more than light applause.

Nevertheless, the Emmys provided some morsels of celebrity appeal. Bryan Cranston and Julia Louis-Dreyfus kissing and Jimmy Fallon stealing Stephen Colbert’s acceptance speech were two memorable ones. These moments, however, were few and far between. Between that and the allure of the Every Simpsons Ever Marathon still going strong on FX, it was very hard to not touch the remote when the show dragged. It would’ve been so much easier to go online after the show and simply read one of a number of recap articles offering a collection of clips of the most memorable moments.

It brings to mind the success of the latest incarnations of late-night TV. Late-night, which used to be solid as a rock when it came to ratings, finds itself fighting a losing battle on that front, instead competing for the most buzz-causing videos to drive Internet traffic. Jimmy Fallon is probably the most notorious for this, with his myriad videos of singing pop while in character or playing hilarious games with celebrities. Perhaps it is not much of a surprise that he was central to one of the most memorable moments of the night. Just as networks are realizing that many people lack the patience to sit through a full late-night show, the same phenomenon seems to be happening with awards shows, the Emmys in particular. It’s been a running gag that these shows are interminable, and maybe it is time to relegate even more awards to off-screen presentations. The Oscars run even longer than the Emmys, but they can rely on prestige. The Grammys have their performances to lean on. The Globes have lately cultivated an irreverent tone to contrast with the haughtier Oscars. The Emmys haven’t figured out their draw. They played like a flatter, duller version of the Oscars on Monday, and that simply won’t do.

Maybe it is a lot to ask the Emmys to find a unifying trait to lean their show on when television is so divergent now, with blockbuster-type epics next to traditional sitcoms next to uploaded-all-at-once political thrillers. Maybe it was a bad Sunday for TV in general; after all, the VMAs also suffered a similar ratings hit this year. It’s most likely, though, that the Emmys themselves have been victimized by the very explosion of quality that has propelled television so prominently upwards in the minds of so many.

 

Daniel Grzywacz is a senior majoring in neuroscience and anthropology. His column, “Binge Watch,” runs Wednesdays.