The Emmy nominations for 2008 were released, and while premium cable and the broadcast networks are still dominant forces in television, we are clearly seeing a growth of basic cable programming, both in terms of quality and recognition.  Shows like ‘Breaking Bad’, ‘Mad Men’, and ‘Damages’ have all garnered attention this year, and their nominations in various categories reflect that.  For these shows’ networks, AMC and FX, it is validation that ad-supported niche cable shows can appeal to voters and audiences alike.

Every year, the Hollywood community inevitably complains about the shows that didn’t get nominated (I would include myself in that list, seeing as how ‘Battlestar Galactica’ was not nominated for best drama series, while ‘Lost’ was overlooked in the writing and directing categories; however, since the former received a writing nod, and the latter is once again in the running for best drama, I really can’t complain).  But this year is different, and should be remembered as such, for the fact that two basic cable networks have shows that are being considered for best drama.  That is not to take anything away from what the broadcast networks have done; shows like ‘House’ and the aforementioned ‘Lost’ not only withstand the test of time, they actually reinvent themselves to remain fresh and interesting.  The cable networks, too, have remained viable, with shows like ‘Dexter’ and ‘The Wire’ receiving nothing but praise from fans and critics both. 

But the emergence of networks like AMC is notable for the fact that they have come seemingly out of nowhere to challenge convention.  They have presented us with small, character-driven shows dominated by great acting and compelling writing, and as a result have found steadily growing audiences.  They even seem to come up with ways to deal with some of the challenges facing television as a whole, such as the growing worry that people with DVRs are fast-forwarding through commercials: while watching ‘Mad Men’, a show about ad executives in the 1960’s, each first-half commercial break features title cards that give interesting tidbits about the sponsor or product in the ensuing commercials (who knew the first Orkin ad dates way back to 1954?)  Simple yet informative, these commercial teasers, for lack of a better description, keep you interested – they actually make you want to watch the commercial!  It’s creativity like this that illustrates, in a small way, what networks like AMC bring to the mix. 

Basic cable networks in general have been upping the ante in recent years.  It’s fitting that FX has recently changed its slogan to “There is No Box”, because that is how the network approaches its programming.  By thinking beyond what’s safe and what works, they have risen the level of quality; in doing so, they have also questioned many of Hollywood’s beliefs, including what, exactly, a hero should look and act like.  FX (along with TNT and USA) has also helped to dispel the notion that there are no primetime, desirable roles for women over 40 – just ask Glenn Close, Holly Hunter, or Kyra Sedgwick.

Here’s hoping that the broadcast networks take a look at what their basic cable counterparts are doing, and realize that there are in fact lessons to be learned. 

Too often, it seems, one hears about the vast differences between the coasts and the central states… “flyover states” they’re called, as though only to be appreciated (if at all) while passing beneath us.  There’s always talk of Hollywood executives being out of touch with these average television-watchers, of their belief that those people tend to embrace simpler, cruder entertainment.  It’s a constant cycle – Hollywood dumbs down television, thinking the average person need only a few explosions and some nudity to be entertained, and the “common man” strikes back that the people in Hollywood can’t make a decent show to save their lives.

To be honest, television is often out of touch.  It does tend to pander to its audience.  It gives us shows like “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” and “The Moment of Truth”.  This is what is called mindless entertainment: easy to ingest, without needing too much thought to do so.  And these are only two examples that typify the “make it cheap, make it simple, and make plenty of it” mentality, the idea that if this is what the people want, then we’re going to give it to them. 

The thing is, this is not what the audience really wants – not exclusively.  Sure, reality programming can be a nice break, a fun form of escapism.  But can you imagine if that was all television had to offer?  If every channel had some form of Lindsay Lohan’s mother staring back at you?  What a truly horrifying thought.  And yet, given the chance, many TV executives would do just that.  Make it cheap, and make it simple, right?  But the only problem is, audiences aren’t simple.  The emergence of reality shows in the past decade or so does not mean that they have a limited threshold of taste.  If anything, it means they are simply waiting to be challenged more often.

Take a look at any successful TV show, and the reason for its success can be traced to its acceptance by a vast audience – not just those on the east or west coasts (or the middle states), but all across the country.  As such, there can be no such thing as a “flyover state”, because no viewer should be ignored, or pandered to.  People in Kansas or Oklahoma are the heart and soul of any audience (just like those in California or New York), and they have just as much need for good entertainment as anyone.  A truly successful television show has at its heart creators that understand this need, and shape themselves to reach as wide an audience as possible.  Take “Lost”, for example, with its blend of action and special effects, thought-provoking writing, and impeccable acting.  The show is many things to many people, and is able to maintain this balance while never compromising its integrity.  It’s as if the creators started out by looking at their audience and at themselves, saying “we can give people intelligent characters and situations – we can stimulate their hearts and their minds and still get their pulses racing”.  They trusted their audience from day one; they didn’t dumb down their work, or spoon-feed it to their viewers.  In turn, their audience trusted them, and are consistently rewarded because of it.

This is not meant to be a discussion on the merits of reality versus scripted television; as mentioned above, both have something unique to offer.  But it would be nice, at the end of the day, to see a greater number of TV shows embrace the idea that their audience is more clever than they’ve been given credit for.  It would be nice if television executives sought out that balance – if they pushed themselves to spread their visions to as many people as possible without compromising those visions. 

Basically, it would be nice if they just shelved “A Shot at Love 3” and gave us something more…