Can an actor actually do the best actor if they don’t know they’re acting? That’s the riddle at issue Jury duty‘s Emmy push. FreeVee, Amazon’s free ad-supported streaming service, has submitted the first season of the mockumentary sitcom for several Emmy comedy categories, including acting, writing and directing.
But the looming question reportedly being considered by the Television Academy is whether Ronald Gladden — the San Diego solar contractor who doesn’t know his jury call is fake and everyone around him is an actor — is eligible for an acting award. , per a report last week from Variety. The hope is that Ronald qualifies for the starring race, taking on prize favorites like Bill Hader in BarryJason Sudeiki enters Ted Lassoand more.
In a week with a new Marvel movie, a new Zelda game and Mother’s Day (PSA!) Even if it’s just a way to get publicity for a show that already benefits from word of mouth, the decision could have consequences have for other shows like Murder town crossing the line on the divide between comedy and variety. Like a good legal drama, there’s a lot to get into in the name of justice. So what is the right thing for the Academy to do? Let’s hear the evidence.
Jury Duty’s case for Ronald as a great “accomplishment”
Image: Amazon Freevee
Of course, Ronald doesn’t know he’s in a sitcom, and certainly not that he’s the regular Joe at the center of much pageantry. But Jury duty is a scripted show, with storylines and characters happening all around him. Like it Jenna Maroney op 30 RockRonald lives theatrically in everyday life, even if he does not know it.
The crass way of saying this is that Ronald accidentally improvised once. Since that’s technically how we all move through the world (though most without a camera crew), think of it this way: there are plenty of shows where performances heavily and routinely involve improvisation, such as Curb your enthusiasm, Reno 911!or The competition. As noted in Variety’s article, some of those performances have won nominations at the Emmys. Why not Ronald?
In this way, Jury duty and the totally improvised Ronald performance that takes center stage definitely qualifies. He’s completely fused his emotions into his role, whether it’s responding to someone trying to say they’re too racist for jury work or telling James Marsden that the Sonic movie is actually funny. What’s more method than that?
The case against Ronald
Of course, there’s the truth introduced by every promotional item and tagline for the show: He is not Act. There are “12 jurors, and 11 actors;” the whole conceit is to surround a common man with people who act, and build a show around the way he unconsciously bounces off their storylines. Ronald, ravishing as he is, cannot be accused of acting either if Mario likes the color red, or Star Trek’s Worf excels at being the best man – it’s just what they do. While I love Ronald and his silent, wide-eyed responses to the judges’ mild madness, he simply responds.
While Larry David certainly plays an improvised, slightly satirized version of himself, Ronald’s performance has been likened to a reality star rather than a mockumentary protagonist. (The premise isn’t far off the more reality skew of 2003 The Joe Schmo Show.) The whole thing is essentially a game, and Ronald just runs through it.
If we were to allow him to be honored for his contributions, we would have to redraw the boundaries of performance as we (the Emmys) understand it: Are the heroes and villains of Love is blind qualify for their altar performances? What about all people Survivor who didn’t come here to make friends? Where do Nathan Fielder and The rehearsal fit into all this?
Game as Ronald is, his suitability as the best protagonist casts doubt on the whole thing. That’s something this court (the Emmys) simply cannot do to undo decades of preeminence.