That doesn't make sense. Many shows aired on PBS have won Emmys. Sesame Street has won hundreds of Emmys against network television shows, and I can assure you that Sesame Streets watchers are not Emmy voters or even Emmy viewers.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never
knowing how
Never underestimate the amount of TV parents are watching with their kids. I bet you that quite a lot of Emmy voters are exposed to stuff like Sesame Street because it's what their kids are watching.
Now, mother always said that whenever you hear a strange, frightening, and potentially life-threatening ghostly chant coming from the dark woods that there's one thing that you should do: Not wake the others and go investigate it alone...
I'm aware of that. But Sesame Street has about as much weight and pull in the television industry as the Tonys. It's not the TV business insiders or ad revenue or ratings that won it Emmys; it won because it deserved them. Raul didn't even win a Tony for Company, but people think he deserved an Emmy nomination (in a medium it wasn't created for and shoddily translated to) to the point where they cry conspiracy over the snub? I loved his performance in Company, but to believe it compared to Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and David Letterman- performances that were made for TV- is just ridiculous, fangirlish bias.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never
knowing how
I think -- and this is obviously just a guess -- it has a lot more to do with the medium of performance than it does with being a "t.v. insider" or whatever. Yes, the medium is going to gravitate toward honoring its own, but look at where these individual performance nominations go. They go to people who are giving performances that were created for t.v.. People who perform for t.v. -- not who perform for the stage and just so happen to end up on television by the luck of someone's very deep and very (wonderfully) generous pockets. And that's probably why the nominations it got were for the editing; because in this case, it was about the translation that brought it to television, not the performances that just so happened to be along for the ride.
Would I have liked to see Raul get an Emmy nomination? Of course. But it was extremely unrealistic to think there was a reasonable chance.
Who said anything about conspiracy? My point is merely that the Letterman, Colbert and Stewart types have made their respective names (and millions) through TV exposure, not Broadway, so it makes sense that the television industry reward their regular appearances and business leverage (which Sesame Street also had/has, even though it was produced by a not for profit and shown on public stations). And I see nothing fangirlish about personally preferring a quality Broadway production to David Letterman dreck. That's the very reason why I spend time and money on theater and not TV.
Well, I have to strongly disagree with equating Stewart and Colbert to Letterman.
I think the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you're giving entire credit to the financial end of things, and none to the matter of medium of the art. You seem to be saying it's simply about the television industry wanting to reward whatever makes it the most money, without giving any weight to the artistic (not the best word, but you know what I mean) side.
Sorry, em - I don't mean to suggest that money is the only driver here (although I just finished reading Speed-the-Plow, so maybe that has influenced my thinking!). I, too, think Colbert and Stewart *are* celever and entertaining (and Letterman is dreck) but all three of them have gained their recognition through TV and appear regularly and bring in viewers. So it doesn't surprise me they are recognized - they are the franchises that have revitalized television and caught the younger demographic that TV needs. Much harder for a single program to have the industry impact of an ongoing series, even if the program is artistic.
I'm sure it is a factor. It'd be naive to claim it's not.
all three of them have gained their recognition through TV and appear regularly and bring in viewers. So it doesn't surprise me they are recognized - they are the franchises that have revitalized television and caught the younger demographic that TV needs.
Yes, exactly. That's what I'm saying; the medium is going to be most eager to recognize its own, people who are established in that the field, and because what they do is created FOR that particular medium. Yes, they get viewers in a way that a short-lived, obscure program isn't going to, but I think that has more to do with it than just issues of business revenue. In that sense, why would a small, random (to most), obscure program hit it big in the television awards? It would be nice, but it wouldn't really make sense. The nominations it got make sense -- they went to some of the people who made it possible to get Company on television.
And I see nothing fangirlish about personally preferring a quality Broadway production to David Letterman dreck.
When you whine that David Letterman was nominated in a category he's dominated for 20 years over Raul- who's remotely eligible for the first time- yes, it's fangirlish. I never watch David Letterman, but like it or not, his performance fits with the rules and standards by which Emmy nominees are chosen. Broadway musical theatre performances do not.
Your outlook is that Raul didn't get nominated because he's not a (rich) TV insider. The more likely scenario is that he didn't get nominated because his performance was a shoddy photocopy of his stage performance that doesn't translate well to television and therefore didn't warrant their attention in comparison. Company was not being judged on the same merits as it was for the Tonys. It doesn't mean it's anything less than brilliant in its own medium. This is TV, not theatre. The Colbert Report would probably be absurd if performed on stage and lose 90% of its appeal. It's the same way with Company. Simply airing it on TV- no matter how many camera angles they used- doesn't make it a TV performance. It makes it a glorified bootleg.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never
knowing how
I never really expected Raul to be nominated - in fact I was surprised that COMPANY got nominated so I wasn't whining. When I whine, you'll know. (Mental image of Violet in August: Osage County doing that high pitched scream of "Where's the beef?" - that's it.) Updated On: 7/18/08 at 10:18 AM
Apparently Raul's going to be on Seth Rudetsky's Sirius show tonight. I have rehearsal tonight, but I can record it tomorrow for those who don't have Sirius.
Raul didn't even win a Tony for Company, but people think he deserved an Emmy nomination (in a medium it wasn't created for and shoddily translated to) to the point where they cry conspiracy over the snub?
I have to disagree with this. While it might not have captured the intensity of seeing Company and Raul's performance in the theater (and maybe nothing could), I thought the Great Performances broadcast was a stellar translation of the show to film -- hence the awards it did earn. It works leagues better than, say, Legally Blonde, which seems made to be filmed by comparison, and I liked it more than Lincoln Center's Light in the Piazza broadcast. For such an unusually staged piece, I was surprised how well it translated, and Raul's performance came across very well. An Emmy nomination for him would have been very, very surprising, but not totally unwarranted (I mean, didn't Barry Manilow beat out Stephen Colbert a few years back for a special of some sort?).
Updated On: 7/18/08 at 02:50 PM
Just so there's no confusion, the Studio A Cabaret on Sirius today with Raúl is a repeat of the show that was first broadcast in February.
ETA: While it's definitely the show from February, it's not the whole thing, it's a Readers Digest edition. The original broadcast was one hour forty minutes. This was cut down to a bit less than one hour. They cut a bunch of stuff, like Shameless and Kalamazoo, etc. But it was still fun to listen to.
If anyone missed the broadcast the first time around, I have it recorded. PM me and I'll send a link to where you can download it.
Yeah, Barry Manilow won for Outstanding Individual Performance in a Variety or Music Program. And that was for a concert that aired on PBS as well. Raul's performance wasn't ineligible for award consideration, but the performance he gave isn't the performance Emmy nominators are looking for. It was a good translation of film, but the acting is still different genres. Company (while better than Legally Blonde) was still stage acting. Remember everyone's reactions here when people said Raul was over the top and overacting during Being Alive at the Tonys? It comes across differently when you see it onstage than it does on a TV screen, and that backlash was among fans on a theatre message board who are used to theatre performances. Even though the Company performance was better than the Tonys, his performance came would across poorly to someone that wasn't accounting for the different between stage and screen performance. Barry Manilow didn't screech bloody murder to echo off the mezzanine wall to get his emotion across.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never
knowing how