Gg Questions in 6-15-06 Ask Matt (NO SPOILERS)

Just two, but very interesting questions, regardless of Roush being
one of the Fuzzypupplanders this year.

[My comments follow each question in brackets.]

The whole column is at:

Question: How can Lauren Graham get nominated for an Emmy in the
comedy category when all of her best scenes this season are dramatic
(i.e., the car scene in the final episode)? Do you think Desperate
Housewives will sweep the nominations once again? I can probably live
with two or three nominated wives, but taking four spots is kind of
pushing it. In a sense I think Lauren has a great chance of being
nominated because Emmy favorites Patricia Heaton and Sarah Jessica
Parker are no longer contenders, and because the Housewives aren't as
dominant as they used to be. However, she may not get nominated just
because this has been the most dramatic (and least comedic) season of
Gilmore Girls — although she did get nominated for a TCA this year. I
don't get it. — Jennifer

Matt Roush: Lauren Graham falls between the cracks in so many ways:
between comedy and drama, and being on a network, now defunct, that
almost never could find its way onto the Emmy radar. The category is a
little more wide-open this year, which is good news, but the
Housewives could be spoilers. My wish, like yours, is that only two
Housewives make the cut: Marcia Cross (who should win) and Felicity
Huffman (who often rose above her material, and besides, with last
year's win and an Oscar nomination, sometimes you just have to face
facts). I'm reasonably sure Mary-Louise Parker of Weeds will be
nominated, and while I wasn't a fan of the show, The Comeback's Lisa
Kudrow was brilliant, and she's a real contender as well. Our fair
Lorelai's greatest hurdle, though, will be the Emmy tendency to
blindly nominate what's popular and prominent, and that means the
category could once again be so heavily weighted toward the ladies of
Wisteria Lane that there's no room, as usual, for anyone from Stars
Hollow.

[Rob here: There are a couple of different problems with Roush's
analysis above. 1) Kudrow *wasn't* brilliant in The Comeback, she's
just an insanely likable personality. The Comeback was just as bad as
the deplorable, unwatchable mess, Fat Actress and not even Kudrow
could save it from *working* as an artistic unit, much less save it
from cancellation. 2) The Emmys also tend to award Lead Comedy
Actresses for dramatic storylines. Think Huffman last year, who,
regardless of her submission tape (the Pilot, apparently), won for the
soccer-field meltdown. Think Jennifer Aniston, who won for her
pregnancy storyline on Friends. By that standard, Graham's
practically a shoo-in to *win* . . . Except that she's on WB show.
OTOH, this is the first year of the changes to the actor nominations
process that include blue-ribbon panels of judges from the acting,
directing and casting branches of the Academy, so right off the bat,
Longoria, Hatcher, Messing and Kascmarek likely won't get nominated
(well, one of the latter three will likely sneak in anyway, but still
. . .) With only Cross and Huffman as strong possibilities from DH
and Louise-Parker a shoo-in, Graham's chances at an Emmy nomination
are the best they've ever been. ESPECIALLY since there really aren't
any new comedies with strong-enough female leads to get nominated.
Hannigan and Smulders of How I Met Your Mother have potential, but not
this year. It's the Comedy SUPPORTING Actress category that's going
to be tougher, with Kelly Bishop, Jenna Fischer and Jaime Pressley,
among others actually credible possibilites now that Doris Roberts
can't possibly be nominated in the category.]