It is deeply silly, in theory, to put competitive awards for artistic success. If the actors, directors, writers, musicians, etc., were all nominated to play the same character, make the same film or write / sing the same song, these prices could make a little more sense. Obviously, nobody wants to live in a world where everyone takes a crack at the same work of art (although the jury is, unfortunately, always as to whether they care if said art is created by human beings), so in place, we have organizations that put trophies according to sex (which is madly problematic), gender and discipline.
Nevertheless, the awards can be vital windows for the entertainment industry and, sometimes, profitable springboards for artists who work outside the dominant current. Bong Joon Ho is now a cinema titan because of his success at the 92nd Oscars (where he won the Oscars for the best film, the best director, the best original screenplay and the best international feature for “parasite”), while it is difficult to imagine that Stephen Sondheim is the career of musical theater which took several decades without decor for the seven -shades). I understand why these reward shows exist, and sometimes I am glad they are there.
But let’s be real: most of the award bodies are made up of artists who look at at most 30% of works worthy of awards ceremony. This is particularly difficult these days if you are an Emmy voter. There is simply too much television there, which means that many voters are missing big programs, films, etc. If I were an Emmy voter, I don’t know how I could possibly follow in good faith (and I do not consider the dip via episodes selected by networks and streamers as a “good faith” of evaluation of a series of the series).
What is the most effective way? I have no idea. I know, however, that one of our greatest living players, who made his debut as a regular as standard in a superb network television program, does not have to worry about this problem. Because he just doesn’t watch television.
