It’s hard for Hollywood to come off as down-to-earth, despite the fact that the industry is less glamorous and full of more blue-collar professionals than some might think. However, especially on the occasion of awards shows, and particularly when those ceremonies take place during challenging times (such as in a climate of political and economic uncertainty), it’s understandable that the Television Academy would want to minimize any perception of elitism or self-congratulation. The Emmys‘ first effort to humble itself for a general audience was to hire Nate Bargatze, the down-home, clean-cut comedian known for poking fun at his own intelligence, as host.
Bargatze, who promised to steer clear of politics, implemented his own bit in an attempt to do good and build some goodwill with home viewers. Shortly after the show began, he used the theater’s massive screen to introduce a charity donation counter. The concept? When long-winded winners went over the 45 seconds allotted for their acceptance speeches, the total — which began at $100,000 — would drop by a thousand bucks per second. This gimmick may have sounded like a win-win in a pitch meeting, but by about 30 minutes into the broadcast, it was painfully obvious it wasn’t going to work as planned. The charity donation bit didn’t just bomb as a running joke; it overwhelmed and derailed the entire show.
The Awkward Emmys Bit
The evening got off to a promising start with a third variation on Bargatze’s hit “Washington’s Dream” skit from SNL. This time, instead of riffing on weights and measures, Bargatze “invented” the concept of TV. Then, after an extended standing ovation for the recently canceled late-night host, Stephen Colbert, Bargatze came back out in his tux and, no longer in character, introduced the idea of the $100,000 donation to the Boys and Girls Club of America.
The comedian has enjoyed a rapid rise in popularity over the past few years, largely due to his authenticity and mass appeal; however, he didn’t seem entirely comfortable on the Emmy stage. Aside from stumbling over his delivery and seeming to dismiss some presenters (he pretended not to know who Jude Law and Jason Bateman were, and called Walton Goggins and Parker Posey “a lot”), he struggled to explain the rules of his donation gambit.
The awkwardness continued when Bargatze threw to JB Smoove, seated in the audience. The comedian and actor is an alumnus of the Boys and Girls Club, which was a nice touch, but he had nothing informative or funny to add to the bit, which was already wearing out its welcome. Things only got worse when, over the next two-plus hours, the numerous problems inherent in the idea became apparent.
First, the countdown clock didn’t limit presenters, so it wasn’t an incentive for stars like Jennifer Coolidge to keep their comments brief. Second, many of the night’s recipients were first-time winners and not household names. While some of the bigger stars were happy to play along and speed through their thank-yous, people like the young Owen Cooper deserved to have their time in the spotlight without the stress of the donation stunt.
Others, like Dan Gilroy, clearly wanted to use their moment to say something relevant. The charity gimmick loomed over every speech. Those who rushed surely didn’t get to say what they’d have wanted to say. Those who went over, sometimes unknowingly, risked looking insensitive as the total decreased. Even for seasoned actors, winning an Emmy is a high-adrenaline experience, but creatives, including those not famous actors, win Emmys, and the countdown felt especially cringe-worthy in their cases.
Worst of all, it committed the very sin it was designed to avoid. Bargatze’s well-intentioned angle on his Emmy hosting gig took up a huge chunk of the show’s runtime, to the point where there was no opportunity for other attempts at comedy, and the broadcast still ran long. It should go without saying that it’s admirable that Bargatze wanted to contribute to a just cause (with a total donation of $350,000 going to the organization). It may have played differently in the room, but for TV fans sitting at home, the 77th Emmy Awards were decidedly less entertaining because of this misguided effort.
You can view the original article HERE.
