Emmy Predictions

All my posts since I started this up again have been. . . preachy. So now some fun:

Emmy Predictions!

Here are the categories that will appear on the telecast along with my choice winner and predicted winner. I haven't included all the nominees. Here's a link to all the information.

Variety and Reality Categories:

Outstanding Variety Series:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (For the tenth year in a row. Yawn.)

Outstanding Reality - Competition Program

The Amazing Race (for the 8th time in the 9 years this has been a category)

Host for a Reality or Reality Competition Program

Cat Deeley - So You Think You Can Dance

With Jeff Probst not nominated for the first time, I think the award will probably go to the host that does the most work in his or her show. Cat Deeley wrangles contestants and judges like no one else.

Movie or Miniseries Categories:

I have actually watched most of this year's nominees, surprisingly. Even more surprising is that I think the performances I enjoyed the most will also win the categories, but tt might just be my ignorance in these categories talking.

Supporting Actor:

Will win and should win: Ed Harris, Game Change

Supporting Actress:

Will win and should win: Jessica Lange, American Horror Story

Writing:

Will win and should win: Danny Strong, Game Change

Directing:

Will win and should win: Kevin Reynolds, Hatfields and McCoys

Lead Actor:

Will win and should win: Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock, A Scandal in Belgravia

Lead Actress:

Will win and should win: Julianne Moore, Game Change

Outstanding Miniseries or Movie:

Will win: Hatfields and McCoys

Should win: Game Change

Drama Series Categories:

Supporting Actor:

Will win: Giancarlo Esposito, Breaking Bad

Should win: Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones

So many people love Breaking Bad. I don't get it. But I think this is the category that will get the trophy this year for the show.

Supporting Actress:

Will win: Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey

Should win: Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Anyone who saw the episode, "The Other Woman," and doesn't give Hendrick an Emmy. . . is an idiot.

Writing:

Will win: Alex Gansa, Gideon Raff, & Howard Gordon, "Pilot" - Homeland

Should win: Semi Chellas & Matthew Weiner, "The Other Woman" - Mad Men

Directing:

Will win: Brian Percival, "Episode 7" - Downton Abbey

Should win: Phil Abraham, "The Other Woman" - Mad Men

Lead Actor:

Will win and should win: Jon Hamm, Mad Men

I am going out on a limb here. . . but I don't think Emmy will return to Bryan Cranston after a year off. The voters will finally give Jon Hamm the recognition he deserves for an amazing performance over the course of the last five years.

Lead Actress:

Will win and should win: Claire Danes, Homeland

This is the category I am far and away most confident about. Her performance as the bipolar CIA agent, Carrie Mathison, is the best acting on TV bar none.

Outstanding Drama Series:

Will win: Mad Men

Should win: Homeland

This might be the toughest category to predict of the night. Mad Men, Downton Abbey, Homeland, and Breaking Bad all have a serious chance at winning. And if the voting group is right, I would say Game of Thrones has a slight chance for the craziest upset ever. I still think Mad Men will pull it out and become the winningest drama series in Emmy history, tying for most awarded series overall (comedy or drama) with Frasier.

Comedy Series Categories:

Supporting Actor:

Will win and should win: Ed O'Neill, Modern Family

I think the Emmy voters will finally right the injustice that has been done to this TV icon.

Supporting Actress:

Will win: Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Should win: Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Writing:

Will win and should win: Lena Dunham, "Pilot" - Girls

Directing:

Will win: Robert B. Weide, "Palestinian Chicken" - Curb Your Enthusiasm

Should win: I genuinely have no clue who should win this category. None of the nominees seem like home runs.

Lead Actor:

Will win and should win: Louis C.K., Louie

All the hard work in writing, directing, and editing will pay off in the (very, very, very weak) lead actor category for Louis C.K.

Lead Actress:

Will win: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep

Should win: Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Amy Poehler can't catch a break. She should have won last year AND the year before, but she keeps getting overlooked.

Outstanding Comedy Series:

Will win and should win: Modern Family

The show is simply the best comedy on TV right now. It hits all the right notes that voters usually look for in this category (heart, mass appeal) and it is hysterical. 

Overall, I think the theme of this year's Emmy awards will be, "Spread the Wealth." Even though the top prizes will go to the same shows, Mad Men and Modern Family, all the other awards will get spread out and become extremely inclusive. 

The Principles of Writing Generously

I believe that bad storytelling is actually just selfish storytelling. It is instance of a writer or storyteller taking things away from the audience or insufficiently helping the audience along.

In that vein, I have thought of a few principles that storyteller/writers should follow in order to write generously. Please note, these suggestions are specific to people who are writing stories (not devotionals, blog posts, or newsletters). They are also specific to people who are writing for an audience (not journals, diaries, or Facebook statuses for people with no friends).

I simply believe that if you want to write for an audience, you must write for them, not AT them.

1. Give your moments to the audience.

How many times have you been reading a book, watching a TV show or enjoying a movie and a character on the screen spoon fed you information? A great example of this is the TV show Full House. At the point of the episode where someone is supposed to learn a lesson from Danny, certain music will start playing. Danny will go into one of his “dad talks,” and the other household member will listen intently while he doles out wisdom. In Full House, this was part of the genre of the show. It was a family sitcom aimed at younger audiences. . . but if you watch it as an adult, you’re likely to get tired of the dad talk music.

My point is this: If you have done your job right as a writer, your audience will reach the “moral of the story” without you ever having to directly state it.

Last year, I was so frustrated by the movie Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close when, in one scene, the young boy admits that he knew all along that his quest was hopeless. I felt that, as an audience member, I already realized that he was holding on to the past in an unrealistic way. I didn’t need the character to tell me that was what he was doing. It felt like I was at the end of one of Aesop’s Fables, and my elementary school teacher was telling to work like the ants so I would have food to eat in winter. If the movie had allowed me to make the realization, I believe the effect would have been more powerful.

Even though it would be much easier to write a “dad talk” into every short story, novel, TV show, and movie, in the end you’re shortchanging your audience by taking those powerful moments of realization away. 

2. You do the legwork.

Writing is fun. I presume you agree or are at least interested in writing if you’re still reading. However, anyone who has sat down with a story to tell knows that it isn’t always easy. In fact, the vast majority of writing anything worth reading is hard work. In order to be generous with your writing, I believe that you have to do the hard work for your audience. You must build your story in a way that will make sense, be enjoyable, and have big payoffs.

This might sound contradictory to the first point I made, which makes it sound like the audience is responsible for filling in the gaps. Wrong. The audience is responsible for planting the flag on the summit. As a writer, you must pick them up at base camp and carry them to the very top of the mountain, and when you get close enough to the top, you have to put them down and let them think they got there by their own efforts.

In  one of my classes, we recently read the screenplay for Back to the Future. It is a great example of the writer doing the legwork, but allowing the reader to plant the flag. The first part of the movie is filled with little pieces of information that will later be explained.

For example, Marty wanders near a van with speakers encouraging people to “Re-Elect Mayor Goldie Wilson!” in 1985. Later, we see that it is Marty who first plants the idea of becoming mayor in Goldie’s head in 1955. After he does this, he never takes credit for it. He never tells anyone else in the movie that he is the one who is responsible for Goldie’s eventual success. The audience knows, and that’s enough. This moment, however, does not work if the writer doesn’t give you the setup earlier in the movie.

It seems like mundane detail work, but payoffs don’t happen without setups. Setups aren’t as fun or easy to write as payoffs, but they give the audience a logical story experience, as opposed to a bunch of payoffs in a row. Imagine that an entire movie comprises the moments when couples get together at the end of romantic comedies. Scene after scene is a couple having a fight where one person convinces the other that they love them, and the scene ends with a kiss. We don’t know the couples; we’re not invested. Granted, those scenes are fun to write, but they aren’t fun to watch unless you’ve been through the rest of the movie.

That’s all I have right now. I may post more of these principles as I see them in the future, but in the meantime, what do you think?

And here’s a question I haven’t really though about very much:

Do these principles apply to types of writing that are not exactly storytelling?