As the end of the lead up
to the 2023 Emmy nominations begins, the debate about gender-neutral awards
continues to be raised. The most recent example came last week when Liv Hewson,
one of the stars of Yellowjackets removed their name from contention for
this year’s Emmys, giving the explanation: “There’s no place for me there.”
I had an immediate snap
reaction to this, but I’m going to hold off sharing it because it won’t make me
look good. In any case, my opinions on this subject have been made repeatedly
clear on my column over and over again – I have argued that when it comes to
this particular subject, it is a cosmetic change, not systematic; that it will
cause more harm to the awards process – particularly in regard to TV – than any
good it will do, and that at the end of the day the effect will be minimal when
it comes to those are arguing the strongest for it. As in the latter case this
argument is being made primarily by non-binary performers I don’t know how any
of them can genuinely consider themselves unbiased on the particular subject –
they can only see the benefits for their tribe and not a harm it does overall
to the system. I would also argue that in quite a few of the more obvious case I
have a very hard time believing that they can be objective considering the old
system is working just fine for them.
And I think because
proving no argument is ever made out of altruism, it honestly might be worth
looking at the most prominent examples of these non-binary performers and to
question both why they are making this argument in the first place and try to
show the hypocrisy involved in it. Because I am an expert on both television, awards
shows, and in the cases of certain performance, the work that brought them to
our attention, in the first place, I think I have qualified to discuss all of
these factors, if not neutrally, then at least from a perspective that can see
an argument for both sides.
When it comes to the
Emmys, this discussion obviously begins with Asia Kate Dillon. I’m qualified to
talk about Dillon perhaps more than most because I remember when they broke on
to the scene. Those of you who have been readers of my blog know that I spent
many years raving about the quality of Showtime’s Billions. My opinion
of it has declined in recent years, but it does not change the fact that when
it was its peak – from its debut in 2016 to its fourth season – I thought the
series was a masterpiece, worthy of being the equal of all of the series that
are considered classics from that era, standing with The Americans, Better
Call Saul, This is Us and Mr. Robot. And a large part of that reason
was the introduction of Dillon’s character of Taylor in the second season.
At the time of Dillon’s
casting in 2017, much was made about the fact that they were the first non-binary
actor to play a non-binary character. Little was made about how brilliant a
performer Dillon was and how he helped a very good series become, at times, a
masterpiece. Every so often a series enters the pantheon of great TV with the
introduction of new characters in later seasons – the most prominent examples
is the introduction of Saul Goodman, Gus Fring, and in a way, Mike Ehrmantraut,
in the second season of Breaking Bad. Lost was good at this in the
introduction of Ben Linus and Juliet Burke in the third season as well. But just
as often, new characters can add dimension to stories that aren’t obvious in
the early episodes – I don’t think I would have stuck with Boardwalk Empire as
long as I did had it not been for the introduction of Richard Harrow halfway
through the first season, and the introduction of Peter Quinn in the middle of
Season 2 of Homeland.
Taylor had that same
brilliant ability. The cold nature of Taylor’s persona, the calculations and
ruthlessness, and the calm monotone he delivered everything in, made them a
scene-stealer among such pros as Damian Lewis and Maggie Siff. Taylor seemed almost
inhuman half the time he was on screen, so it was fascinating in later seasons
when you saw they were capable of attraction and love – and that their heart
could be broken. I’ve rethought many of the tricks that the writers did over
the run of Billions that I was considered brilliant and the flaws that
made the characters repetitive; I never once felt they stepped wrong when it
came to Taylor.
Those of you who may have
followed my predictions for the Emmys will remember I spent a lot of time advocating
– futilely – for Billions in the first four years of its eligibility.
Not to toot my own horn, but in my predictions for the Emmys in 2017 I advocated
for Dillon that year. I acknowledged that it would be a headache for the Emmys
to figure out where to put them (prescient words) but that Dillon deserved
recognition for their work. (I will also confess that I spent so much time
struggling over pronoun that I just kept referring to them as Dillon.)
It did not shock me that
Dillon did not get nominated that year, nor has since. That being said, while I’ll
admit that there might be prejudice involve, it has nothing to do with the
identity of Dillon, but rather the Emmys bias against Showtime. It did not help
that during the peak of Dillon’s performance on Billions he was
competing in the era where both supporting categories were dominated by HBO
dramas, first Game of Thrones, then Succession. A lot of very
qualified actors and actresses were ignored during their years who didn’t have
the added difficulty of having the Emmys try to figure out which category to
put them in and I feel that Dillon was fundamentally a victim of that as much
as any outside factor.
Now if Dillon wants to
argue that gender neutral categories stop people like them from getting
nominations, they can do so. Dillon, to be clear, would be hoping that you
forget they were nominated three consecutive years by the Critics Choice Award
for Supporting Actor and they were there each year. I advocated for Dillon in two
of those years, but I knew given the level of the competition (they lost to David
Harbour for Stranger Things, Noah Emmerich for The Americans, and
Billy Crudup for The Morning Show respectively and the caliber of the
other nominees was just as high in each year) that they had little realistic
chance. If Dillon really did feel that having to demean themselves to fit into
an acting category, they could easily have refused to put their name into consideration,
or after being nominated, decline it. In no case did Dillon do so and was at
every one of these ceremonies. What does that say about this being a principled
fight for them? Let’s put a pin in that for now.
In 2021, Dillon had become
more adamant in their argument and interestingly enough, that same year, there
was another key non-binary performer who was getting awards and talk – and unlike
Dillon, actual awards to go with them.
Season 4 of The Crown is
considered the best season yet of the series, and while I remain uncertain of
it by comparison, I do admire it for how Peter Morgan chose to frame the
struggle at it. During that season Elizabeth (then played by Olivia Colman),
who had spent the first two seasons and much of the third being the central
force of the series, the representations of the best the monarchy stood for.
Morgan chose to introduce two very different figures, both female, that
represented a challenge to the authority that she stood for: Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher (Gillian Anderson) and the eventual Princess Diana, played by
Emma Corrin.
If Thatcher represented a
force by a challenge to the monarchy’s authority as an outsider, Diana represented
it as essentially an interloper, somebody that every one was all right initially
with except her future husband, and none of whom cared about her as a person. Corrin
was masterful at playing Diana’s fragility in private, who could not understand
why wanted to do things her own way, she was loathed by her husband and barely
tolerated by the rest of her in-laws. It was heartbreaking watching Corrin’s frequent
attempts to win over husband be met by constant cruelty and receive no sympathy
from her in-laws fundamentally because they thought the institution matters
more than anyone person’s happiness. This was a contradiction to what Morgan
had illustrated in The Queen, and it was in large part because of Corrin’s
performance that the viewer, whose sympathy had been for Elizabeth to this
point, now saw her as unsympathetic and something of a monster.
Like everyone else, I was
in awe of Corrin’s work at the time, and while I questioned Corrin being
considered a lead actress rather than a supporting throughout the runup to the
Emmys, I could not question the caliber of the performance. Corrin dominated
the lead up to the Emmys, taking the Golden Globe, the Critics Choice Award,
and the inaugural HCA TV Awards for Best Actress in A Streaming Drama. (Corrin
was nominated for a SAG award as well but lost to Anderson, who similarly
dominated the awards leading up to the Emmys.)
I don’t know when I learned
that Corrin was non-binary, but I’m certain it wasn’t until after the 2021
Emmys when they had been upset by Olivia Colman. I do know that Corrin
did not lend their voice to the growing argument for a gender-neutral acting
category until after they had lost the Emmy. I have a very clear memory
of Corrin during the awards season well up to September, and at no point do I
have any memory of Corrin having so much of an opinion on the debate that performers
like Dillon were arguing for at the time.
I can make less of an
argument of this being a fight waged on principle because unlike Dillon, whose
character was non-binary, Corrin was playing a female character. Perhaps they
thought it made sense to accept the nominations as an actress and not raise a
fuss. That being said, I must raise a different argument of Corrin’s integrity:
should gender-neutral characters be allowed to play characters of a specific
gender? While Dillon does not have enough of a resume to argue one way or the
other, Corrin’s roles would argue that
when it comes to being a performer, they are taking roles that identify as
female – Corrin has been most recent cast as Constance in Lady’s Chatterley’s
Lover. Was does that say about integrity? That when it comes to acting you
will take a role for only one gender even if you identify as non-binary? If that
is the case, the argument for principles is built on a slippery slope.
This brings me to two
different non-binary performers this year in series that will be dominant among
the Emmy nomination in a few months: Hewson for Yellowjackets and Emma D’Arcy
for House of The Dragon. D’Arcy lent their voice to the discussion
saying that they’d given up on these kinds of roles in Hollywood but ended up
getting cast as Rhaenyra, the female lead of the series this past year.
D’Arcy was nominated for Best Actress in a Drama in the Golden Globes this year
and is a likely contender for Best Actress
this year and future years. I didn’t here any argument during the run-up to the
Globes of their being upset at being nominated as an actress, but maybe I wasn’t
looking that hard. There has certainly been no indication that they intend to
take their name out of consideration for the Emmys this year.
So with that in mind, let’s
consider both Hewson’s decision to remove their name for consideration and D’Arcy’s
silence on the matter. I honestly think that the actions of both speak volumes
not only to their opinions on this issue but that so much of this issue by the
ones it should effect is posturing and virtue-signaling.
Hewson’s decision might
seem like a personal sacrifice. The reality is, even if they were to put their
name into consideration, the odds of Hewson getting a nomination was almost non-existent,
particularly this year. Given the level of competition in this category among such
series as The White Lotus, Succession, The Crown, House of the Dragon and
Better Call Saul, there would have been no realistic chance of Hewson
getting nominated before all of the actresses who play teenagers on Yellowjackets
were considered. Hewson has to know very well that in their own series
Christina Ricci and Juliette Lewis would be considered before, and that Lauren
Ambrose, her adult equivalent, has a better chance than them.
By contrast, if D’Arcy
were to take their name out of consideration, it would be significant. With Ozark
and This is Us over and Euphoria ineligible, the field of likely
nominees for Best Actress in a Drama is smaller than it was before. D’Arcy is
one of the few contenders whose nomination for House of the Dragon was
considered a near certainty; to withdraw from consideration because of this
issue would be the kind of stance that not only the Emmys but other awards
shows would have to take seriously. That D’Arcy has not done so and shows no
intention to date of doing so speaks volumes.
Seen in that light, both performers
are essentially demonstrating their real opinions on the issues by the same
thing. Hewson is posturing because they have no chance. D’Arcy isn’t because
they have one. This make this argument that all of this talk on this subject is
not based on some grand principle but rather the same motivation that essentially
grounds any actor in the end: they want to improve their chance of winning a
shiny bauble and they are doing everything that they can to improve the odds of
it. That is all this arguing for some kind of gender-neutral awards really is: self-interest.
I imagine some of you,
particularly those of you who are non-binary, will view me as the kind of
person who gets pleasure in tearing down these idols. I don’t see it that way.
I have issues with the battle they have chosen to wage, but I don’t think any
less of these performers than I did before this. I can’t begin to imagine the
struggles that they had to overcome to get to the zenith of their profession.
And I do understand the need for heroes and role models, particularly in this
case.
For the record, all of
these performers are superb actors. I don’t deny any of that. You might say
that by questioning their motives I think less of them. I don’t. In a weird
way, I actually admire them for this kind of behavior. Acceptance comes when we
realize that even the people we admire are not perfect, that they are capable
of the same flaws and foibles as everyone else in their profession. Dillon,
Corrin, and all the other performers like them are demonstrating that when it
comes to getting what they want, they can be as ruthless and determined to step
over anybody to get what they want. In other words, they fit in perfectly in
Hollywood. If that isn’t a sign that they are no different from anybody else in
their profession, I don’t know what is.
No comments:
Post a Comment