The Emmy B-Team: The Scruff

Welcome back to my 6th edition (yes, six!) of the Emmy B-Team. The idea is pretty simple. People like to complain about the Emmy nominations. They point out one or two "snubs", never consider what's actually on the nominating ballots*, and say that the Emmy voters did a bad job. The skeptic that I am, I wanted to find out if the Emmy picks were really that bad. So, I looked through the official Emmy nominating ballots. I created an alternate group of non-nominated performers/episodes/shows and compared those groups to the actual nominees to see which was stronger. I'll spare you the suspense: The Nominees always win handily, although it's close in the Drama and Comedy categories. Now, this serves as a fun way for me to point out the biggest snubs, audit the Emmy picks more fairly, and point out some quirks in the nominating ballots**.

*Remember, a show, person, or episode can only be nominated if it is submitted. Even if you want every episode of Game of Thrones to be nominated for writing, that won't happen, since they only submitted one episode there.

**You'd be surprised how often that actor you thought was snubbed wasn't even on the official ballot or had listed himself as a lead instead of a supporting actor.

I don't do every category. I don't pretend that I've seen everything or that I fully understand all the categories. I'm a one-man operation talking about hundreds of shows. I'm doing the best I can.

I'll start with what I call "the scruff". It's the random categories that I like to include that don't fit in any of my major groups.

* Indicates a show that I haven't watched this season.

# Indicates a show I've seen before, not this season.

Outstanding Animated Program

Nominees
Big Mouth – “The Planned Parenthood Show”) (Netflix)

Bob's Burgers – “Just One Of The Boyz 4 Now For Now” (FOX)

BoJack Horseman – “Free Churro” (Netflix)

#Adventure Time – “Come Along With Me” (Cartoon Network)

The Simpsons – “Mad About The Toy” (FOX)

B-Team

#American Dad! – “Rabbit Ears”

*F is For Family – “Battle of the Sexes”

#Family Guy – “Trump Guy”

#South Park – “Dead Kids”

*Tuca & Bertie – “Plumage”

I've been complaining for years about them snubbing BoJack Horseman. This year, they finally nominated it, added Big Mouth, and kept Bob's Burgers and The Simpsons. That doesn't leave me with much to complain about.

Winner: Nominees (Dominant)

Outstanding Directing For A Documentary/Nonfiction Program

Nominees
Free Solo (National Geographic)

*FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened (Netflix)

Leaving Neverland (HBO)

RBG (CNN)

Three Identical Strangers (CNN)

B-Team

*America to Me – “Listen to the Poem!”

The Case Against Adnan Syed – “Time Is The Killer”

*Generation Wealth

Minding the Gap

Shirkers

Thanks to several loopholes, a lot of Oscar eligible documentaries are also eligible for Emmys too, so the field of programs to choose from is quite impressive.The Nominees list has a great mix of zeitgeist (FYRE, Leaving Neverland), pedigree (Free Solo, Three Identical Strangers), or both (RBG). The B-Team is pretty good too. Shirkers and Minding the Gap were highly praised documentaries from last year. Generation Wealth taps into the zeitgeist in its own way. The Case Against Adnan Syed and America to Me have better claims as "TV programs". I know of at least one critic I trust who called America to Me the best program that aired on TV in 2018. Still, the Nominee list is the ideal Emmy variety.

Winner: Nominees (Comfortably)

Outstanding Writing For A Nonfiction Program

Nominees
*Anthony Bourdain Parts Unknown – “Kenya” (CNN)

The Case Against Adnan Syed – “Forbidden Love” (HBO)

*Fyre Fraud (Hulu)

*Hostile Planet – “Grasslands” (National Geographic)

*Our Planet – “Jungles” (Netflix)

*Wu-Tang Clan: Of Mics And Men – “Episode 1” (Showtime)

B-Team

*American Experience: The Circus

*American Experience: The Eugenics Crusade

*Generation Wealth

Shirkers

*The Staircase – “Flawed Justice”

*Wyatt Cenac’s Problem Areas – Inequality Problems”

I had to struggle to fill out this B-Team. American Experience always has solid writing, and Shirkers is a "you have to hear it to believe it story". Of Mics and Men received a ton of praise, and The Case Against Adnan Syed was well-structured. And, before you ask, the Fyre Festival documentary from Netflix isn't eligible, so that's why it's not in either group.

Winner: Nominees (Comfortably)

Outstanding Documentary Or Nonfiction Special

Nominees
*FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened (Netflix)

*The Inventor: Out For Blood In Silicon Valley (HBO)

*Jane Fonda In Five Acts (HBO)

Leaving Neverland (HBO)

*Love, Gilda (CNN)

Minding The Gap (Hulu)

B-Team

*Betty White: First Lady of Television

*American Experience: The Circus

*Fyre Fraud

*I Am Richard Pryor

*Robin Williams: Come Inside My Mind

*The Steve Irwin Story

I'm fully confused by the difference between "Outstanding Documentary Or Nonfiction Special" and "Exceptional Merit in Documentary Filmmaking" (which didn't have a strong enough list for a B-Team). What I can say is that the B-Team list left slim pickings, including the lesser Fyre Festival documentary and a couple biographies that I forgot about. Meanwhile, the nominees include Minding the Gap and Leaving Neverland which were both excellent (as well as unsettling).

Winner: Nominees (Dominant)

Outstanding Documentary Or Nonfiction Series

Nominees
#American Masters (PBS)

*Chef's Table (Netflix)

*Hostile Planet (National Geographic)

*Our Planet (Netflix)

30 For 30 (ESPN)

B-Team

*America to Me

The Case Against Adnan Syed

*The Staircase

The 2000s

*Wu-Tang Clan: Of Mics And Men

30 for 30 and American Masters are institutions. And, people love food and nature footage. The Nominees are strong. The B-Team interests me more. Of Mics and Men and America to Me earned incredible reviews. The Case Against Adnan Syed and The Staircase were compelling looks into crimes. CNN's decade series are always nice surveys of the years in question (even if it is way too soon to be doing the 2000s - right?). I've seen more of the B-Team than the nominees, and the 30 for 30s over the last year haven't been that great.

Winner: B-Team. (Narrowly)

 

---

That makes it a pretty easy 4-1 for the Nominees on day 1. 

Movie Reaction: After the Wedding

Formula: Lion - Slumdog Millionaire

(i.e. just the white people)

There are two ways I can discuss this movie. I can either talk about it or talk around it. Which, I suppose is my way of saying "spoiler alert", not that I would describe this as a movie to be spoiled. I haven't found the proper term for movies like this. There are parts about it that are better to find out within the context of the movie than beforehand. It's not a movie that's trying to pull one over on the audience. But there's no good way to warn people of this without putting them on alert. I hate being coy, but it's kind of required.

Here's what talking around the movie looks like. After the Wedding is about Isabel (Michelle Williams). She runs an orphanage in India but has to fly to New York City to meet a business woman, Theresa (Julianne Moore), who is considering giving millions of dollars to the orphanage. This happens to be on the same weekend as Theresa's daughter's wedding. At the wedding, Isabel realizes she has something in common with Theresa that changes her entire perception of the trip. Isabel must stay in New York City longer than expected to sort this all out.

Williams and Moore are very good. Williams spends most of the movie uncomfortable with her surroundings. There's a recurring bit where she takes off her shoes to go down stairs or walk somewhere quickly. She's not one to suffer uncomfortable shoes just because they look nice. That sums her character up nicely. She's happier in India where she doesn't have to worry about these things. It takes about a minute to realize she's a character running away from something. Moore has the more interesting performance. Theresa is both a successful business woman and a great mother. It's surprisingly rare to find a character in a movie who is believably both. She's demanding. She doesn't suffer fools. It's easy to see how she succeeded in business, and you can tell that she struggles to prevent that from bleeding into her personal life, where she is a loving wife and mother. Her interactions with Williams are often frustrating, because both women are stubborn in different ways. Moore is used to trampling obstacles, and Williams is used to avoiding the drama altogether. The movie also gets good performances from Billy Crudup (Moore's husband) and Abby Quinn (Moore's daughter). It's Moore and Williams' movie though.

The dialogue is very specific throughout. It reminded me of writing poems in creative writing classes. That process was always about cutting. Drop every word from the poem that doesn't have a specific and exact purpose in there. This movie doesn't have a lot of filler conversation. If a conversation isn't going anywhere, it will abruptly cut to the next scene rather than let it play out. Characters don't use 10 words when one or a smile will do. It's skillfully done but it left me a little cold.

And that's about all I can say around the movie. It's good. I liked it well enough. This is the kind of movie that has a big drop off from 'love' to 'like'. Loving it means putting it in my top movies of the year and I connected to it deeply. Liking it, even a lot, means I'll have trouble telling this movie apart from a dozen others in a couple years. 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

After the Credits

OK, now it's time to talk ABOUT the movie. So, the lack of wordiness I mention. Nowhere is it better than when Isabel realizes that Abby Quinn is her daughter. That's all explained through camera cuts and the look on Williams' face. It's a fine bit of acting, and I loved listening to the occasional gasp in the theater as someone figured it out.

The more background I find out about this film, the more about it makes sense. First of all, this is a remake of a Danish movie except the lead roles in that were men. That explains a lot. Both "the parent who never looked back after giving the child up" and "the cutthroat CEO" are roles someone would normally write for a man. That's boring though. I'm massively in favor of this gender swap. It changes the dynamic in far more engaging ways.

Secondly, I'm sorry to play this game, but I could not figure out the ages anyone was supposed to be in this movie. Julianne Moore is 58. Billy Crudup is 50. Michelle Williams is 38. I think Crudup is playing 44. You can always age Moore down several years. I would guess that Williams is about the right age, perhaps on the younger side. Were Crudup and Williams supposed to be closer in age though? How old was Moore supposed to be? Diane Kruger was originally cast in the Williams role. She's 43. That lines up a little more with Crudup and Moore. I don't know. I guess this is a movie in which I should focus more on the quality of the performances.

I am very glad that the movie didn't try to sell this as one big coincidence. I would've forgiven it as part of my One Big Leap rule, but it would've stretched it. It makes much more sense for a woman as controlling as Moore's character is  to have masterminded it. And I do love that it came from a place of love. Twisted logic, but love nonetheless.