Why It Matters That 'Twin Peaks' Didn't Get Nominated For Any Major Emmys
Since its debut in 1990, "Twin Peaks" had the reputation as one of those things that just "isn't for everyone." That kind of phrasing has always bugged me; the label of "not for everyone" implies there are things out there that are for everyone, as if it was unthinkable that someone might not be totally crazy about, say, "Cheers." The current glut of high-budget serialized television has at least moved a lot TV criticism into a more nuanced space than "is it for everyone?" When even professional TV critics have trouble keeping up with the deluge of shows itching to be the next "Breaking Bad," "Stranger Things" or "Game of Thrones" (while keeping up with those headline-grabbing shows still on air, or revisiting old ones), people are a little more forgiving when you confess to not having seen this or that show. Five years ago I was chided for not being up to date on "Game of Thrones," but even the biggest fans of it I know aren't giving me a hard time for not finishing "Westworld."
Then there are the Emmys. When this year's nominations came out, I along with scores of other "Twin Peaks" fans were incensed to see that its Showtime revival received zero nominations. Scratch that — it actually received nine nominations, but in niche, untelevised categories (sidenote to any site that claims to post the full list of Emmy nominees leaves these smaller categories off the list: c'mon, knock that off). For fans, the snubs in the major categories, including Outstanding Limited Series, sting a whole lot, judging by the output of fellow bloggers. As a huge fan I'm definitely upset. Kyle MacLachlan worked his ass off as so many variations of one character it's hard to count; the late Miguel Ferrer played off of director David Lynch's self-insert character brilliantly; Laura Dern deserves an award for each withering "fuck you" she uttered throughout the show (at least the Year of Dern continues into 2018 with her Emmy nomination for "The Tale").
That said, as someone who enjoys good television full-stop, I'm more upset for the shows that could've followed in the footsteps of "Twin Peaks." In a pure business sense, last year's "Twin Peaks" revival was a marvel. After some rocky negotiations at the beginning, Showtime approved 18 hour-long episodes, each written by Lynch and co-creator Mark Frost and every second of it directed by Lynch himself (by my estimation, that's about double the length of "Twin Peaks" he directed before, counting the feature film follow-up). Single-director series are rare: you can be sure that Cary Joji Fukunaga's outstanding work on the first season of "True Detective" was discussed as Showtime hashed out the "Twin Peaks" deal. It's also incredibly risky: Sam Esmail spent the entire second season of "Mr. Robot" spinning his wheels as he took over directing duties. When you move away from the typical ways TV is made and your move doesn't pay off, in ratings or awards, that makes it harder for the next show that wants to do the same.
One TV creator who should know that full-well is Michael Schur. After working on "The Office" (US), Schur went on to make "Parks And Recreation," "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" and "The Good Place." In its seven seasons, "Parks" only got nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series twice. "Nine-Nine" has yet to be nominated (and just narrowly avoided cancellation), and "Good Place" — which by my judgement is the best comedy on TV today — got snubbed in that category too. You know what did get nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series three times? "The Big Bang Theory."
Okay, okay, I'm getting heated. This isn't about the "Twin Peaks" and "The Good Place" kinds of shows versus "The Big Bang Theory" kinds of shows, as there's room enough for both. The issue is that the Emmys serve as validation for the choices made both by the people who actually work on the shows and by the network execs that commission them. When the Emmy nominations are dominated by shows that have already been around for a while or that (and this isn't a judgment on quality, necessarily) just follow familiar TV show structures, that makes it harder for newer, more adventurous shows to get their shot period. It's got to be super frustrating for the ones that do make it to air to see the Emmys pass over them too — why devote yourself to making a structurally inventive, thematically progressive musical-comedy when the umpteenth season of a show from the 2000s can easily snuff you out?
https://twitter.com/Racheldoesstuff/status/1017495393397903360
The nominations aren't all bad. "The Good Place" got snubbed but "Atlanta" made it in the comedy category, even if some of its most memorable episodes are more akin to horror films — and that's one of many shows that proudly wore a "Twin Peaks" comparison on its sleeve in its earliest days. In terms of diversity, the acting categories have never been better. At least for the show this article is nominally about, the most daring hour of "Twin Peaks" ever secured it most of its technical nominations, which might be recognition enough.
Still, this isn't about recognition so much as it's about creation — after all, I personally don't know anybody who'd be more swayed to check out a show based on the number of Emmys it has racked up over a personal recommendation from a friend. In such a competitive, saturated field, creators take their cues for what works and what can be changed based on the successes and failure that come before them. The arrival "Peak TV" helped break the industry out of some homogenizing, dreary habits, but if the Emmys don't give credit to the shows that are moving beyond those lessons, TV can fall back into a similar rut (like, please, do we really need any "Thrones" spin-offs?).
If you think of TV as one giant entity, then the Emmys should be like a routine check-up at the doctor. What's working healthily? Are there new habits worth encouraging, old ones worth scaling back? The return of "Twin Peaks" was challenging and energizing, and for it to go unsung is like telling your doctor you rediscovered a love for jogging… only for your doctor to shrug their shoulders and say "eh, I prefer you just eat junk food."
