Emmy Reading This Correctly?

I'm not sure anything I've watched during the past season toyed with my emotions the way reading this year's list of Emmy nominees did earlier today. It was like my brain was playing Twister with me, calling out one new color after another before I could possibly get my left hand on green.

First there was anticipation: would Lost - after last year's snub - get its due this year with a nomination for Outstanding Drama? Then there was curiosity: there's an Outstanding Choreography category? That was followed by a sense of 'who knew?': there's an Outstanding Commercial category. Next there was self-doubt: "Am I reading this correctly? I must have missed the mentions of Planet Earth." (I did, it picked up 7 nominations). Then the fireworks began, starting with a feeling of satisfaction: 10 nominations for 30 Rock, 9 for The Office; which quickly turned into tempered indignation: Lost getting only 4 nods, but in the right categories and for the right reasons; and finally downright contempt when, after I finished the list, I realized Elizabeth Mitchell's name was nowhere to be found.

Now, I'm grounded enough to know that none of this is really that important. After all, more often than not its nothing more than self-congratulatory Hollywood nonsense. But the same could be said of any industry's awards. Does anyone outside the field really care who the best plumbing supplier in greater Montpelier is in any given year? No, but the pipe pushers in Vermont do, and while I don't get to see how good those guys are at hawking hose I do spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. I have some favorite shows - and guilty pleasures - as well as some absolute must-not-watchers (Grey's Anatomy) and I am able to recognize quality work when it is put in front of me. In that context, I don't feel so ridiculous in my reactions to this morning's announcement.

A second look at the nominees reveals some well deserved recognition as well as some head-scratchers. Among the highlights and lowlights:

It was great to see both Michael Emerson and Terry O'Quinn (Ben and Locke respectively) of Lost get nods for Outstanding Actor, albeit in the supporting category. I think a case could be made for either or both of them to have landed a lead spot, perhaps taking Keifer Sutherland's place in that category. While Sutherland's work is usually pretty compelling, this iteration of 24 left him very little to work with and he felt like more of a supporting character in the last two-thirds of the season.

It was good to see Heroes get some respect - 8 nominations including Outstanding Drama - though it may be a little undeserved. A good show, but very uneven in it's first season, it started to coalesce into something greater than its parts just before it completely imploded with a disastrously disappointing finale. I agree with the suggestions that this nomination may be lip service to those of us who like serialized dramas. Mark Harris has a great article about this and other aspects of the nominating process at EW.com.

Top Chef is in the running for Outstanding Reality Competition, though it will have trouble against perennial favorite The Amazing Race and another Bravo standout, Project Runway.

Alec Baldwin is up against Steve Carell in the Lead Actor - Comedy category. Though I love Carell's continually oblivious performance, Baldwin was a major reason the audience kept watching 30 Rock until the show eventually found its footing and established itself as the best new comedy of the season.

Not to drift too close to fanboydom, but most of my discontent stems from how Lost was treated by those who do the nominating. It was a stellar season (yes, from start to finish) and the second best ep of the season, "Through the Looking Glass", rightly received nominations for writing and directing. How the series didn't make the cut for Outstanding Drama however boggles one's mind, especially in light of the fact that the season finale was quite possibly two of the best hours of primetime television I have ever seen. I like Heroes, but Lost is a far better enterprise. Though maybe both should be in the final list, at the expense of the glorified soap opera that is Grey's Anatomy.

Additionally, I am gobsmacked that Elizabeth Mitchell's portrayal of Juliet on the series was completely overlooked. She should have at least gotten a nod for Supporting Actress if not Lead. Her work was simply fantastic. In each episode she appeared she was asked to play a range of emotions in order to conceal the fact that she is at least a triple agent whose sole allegiance in the end is probably only to herself. I can't imagine anyone who voted for this category seeing any of her performances and not putting her at the top of the list. It's criminal to say the least.

At least, as viewers, we have the next two months to regain our composure. At which time the polka dotted plastic rug will reappear to remind us that the voting process makes no sense, and more often than not seems to be based more on soundbites and hype (read Harris's article) rather than merit. Well, merit wins the technical categories, but we don't get to see those. They apparently don't make good television. Oh the irony!