The days before Sunday's broadcast of the 65th
Who was in:
That this seemed to elevate these deceased above others was taken by some commentators as problematic after a year that also saw the deaths of Larry Hagman and Jack Klugman. (Those were the names raised in the press — but there were other TV luminaries, including
And yet for some in the audience, his would have been the meaningful loss. Possibly, Monteith would have had
Still, Adam Klugman was not wrong when he said, "They're doing this because they think they're gonna get a younger generation of viewers to watch."
The Emmy broadcast is made up of many such choices — who hosts, who presents, what packages and production numbers to include, all arguable. Nor do the awards themselves represent any absolute measure of quality: Deserving people win them, but other deserving people do not. That those decisions are made by a large body does give them a kind of statistical weight, but they are also open to unresolvable dispute.
The decision to break out these tributes, with "superstars" honoring the selected departed — the selections seemed categorical (middle-aged actor, young actor, woman, comic, writer) — was no different, really, than the choice to include an appearance by
Spread out through the evening, each tribute featured a speaker standing before a picture or pictures of the departed; some were visibly moved, some were relaxed, some less so. Of Monteith, Lynch said, "From the first time you saw Cory, he had a star quality and a genuine sweetness that made it impossible not to fall in love with him ... and millions did." She added a cautionary note about the destructiveness of drugs.
The more inclusive group memorial, when it came, did seem rushed by comparison. (It seemed rushed, as well, by comparison with some previous memorial segments — perhaps it was sped up for time.) The applause for Hagman and for Klugman was particularly loud, perhaps to make a point. But they are all gone now and, in that, equal.