FOR EMMYS, IT'S JUST ABOUT TIME; AWARD SHOW COULD USE A SHARPER FOCUS.

Byline: David Kronke TV Critic

In years past, it seemed that the Emmy was the entertainment trophy that often went to folks who actually deserved to win. Oscars tend to go to sturdy, middlebrow works that honor film history more than influence future movies, and Grammys go to - well, usually the most puerile claptrap that managed to go triple-platinum.

Emmy's aesthetic dominance ended a few years ago when cable TV became a force to be reckoned (though only a little) with. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences managed to throw a few bones - that is, nominations - to cable productions, even wins in less glamorous categories like outstanding made-for-television movie when it was obvious that the networks' Amy Fisher and women-in-peril fare wasn't exactly deserving. But when cable offers exciting, fresh series television - think ``The Larry Sanders Show'' in the past, or ``The Sopranos'' this year - it has been considered untoward to acknowledge that.

Most viewers hadn't seen the show, and a win might, heaven forbid, either encourage someone to sample the series - or dismiss the Emmys as obscure. Whereas the Oscars usually pull around 40 million viewers, the Emmys have tended in recent years to make do with 15 million to 20 million or so. (Millions more check in for a few minutes, then, presumably aghast at the proceedings, seek entertainment elsewhere.) Such an anemic showing, from viewers of the very medium the ceremony seeks to celebrate.

Thanks to the cable explosion, there's more TV than ever out there, and even the biggest hits are only being seen by a small percentage of Americans. It's increasingly difficult for the average viewer to figure out what's worth watching, and maybe Emmy should be more assertive about helping us decide. Maybe it's time to make the Emmy a real ambassador for television. Instead of scattering trophies far and wide in a variety of meaningless categories, or perpetuating tired popularity contests, perhaps the Emmys should get lean and mean and suggest to viewers that an honored show truly merits your viewing time.

Something needs to be done to get people outside Hollywood truly engaged in the Emmy process again - not simple fixes, given how hard tradition is to break, but hardly revolutionary changes, either. We're not suggesting that the Emmys are suffering from hopeless bloat; it's just that after 50 years, they've put on a little extra weight, and a little conditioning program would do anyone good. So instead of the traditional will-win/should-win handicapping, here are some thoughts on how to make us care who will/should win in the future.

1) How about mixing it up a little?

The comedy category has been hopelessly mired in predictability - ``Frasier'' has won every year for the past five years, and in the past 20 years, only four sitcoms have not repeated as outstanding comedy series winner. Helen Hunt has been named best actress in a comedy for the past three years running; her predecessor, Candice Bergen, won five trophies. In the best actor category, Kelsey Grammer and John Lithgow have divvied up Emmys for the past five years. Hunt, Grammer and Lithgow are all nominated again this year, and only the fact that Bergen's show is no longer on the air kept her from getting another nomination.

These dominant winners suggest lazy voting patterns rather than juggernaut artistry. Contrast this with the outstanding drama series category, which has seen a different winner in each of the past five years: ``The Practice,'' ``Law & Order,'' ``ER,'' ``NYPD Blue'' and ``Picket Fences.''

This year, the tedium may abate, slightly - ``Frasier'' was perceived to have a weak year, while ``Friends'' not only earned renewed acclaim but also surged to become the top-rated comedy. It's hardly the best comedy on TV, but at least a ``Friends'' win will be a change of pace. In the future, the nominating committee needs to be more assiduous in seeking out quality programming rather than rubber-stamping the usual suspects.

2) Enough already with all the categories.

There are nearly 80 categories these days, including such nail-biters as outstanding hairstyling for a miniseries, movie or a special; outstanding lighting direction (electronic) for a drama series, variety series, miniseries, movie or a special (thank heavens they distinguished the electronic aspect from those candle-lit productions); and outstanding sound mixing for a variety or music series or a special (not to be confused with outstanding sound editing for a miniseries, movie or a special). Categories like these bring Woody Allen's ``All they do in Hollywood is hand out awards'' rant in ``Annie Hall'' to mind.

Outside of the individuals up for these prizes and their immediate families, who cares? Put it this way: They don't give Pulitzers to the guys in the composing room who paste up newspaper pages, or Nobels to chemists for keeping test tubes organized, jobs which require similar measures of technical skill.

For sheer overkill, though, look to the no fewer than 18 acting categories (including voice performance in animation). The Emmys for performances in miniseries or movies tend lately to favor actors known for their film work; this year is no exception - Don Cheadle, Ian Holm, Jack Lemmon, Stanley Tucci, Peter O'Toole, Judy Davis, Helen Mirren, Ann-Margret, Anne Bancroft, Cicely Tyson and Dianne Wiest are among the nominees. This star-struck behavior seems a tacit concession that film stars are necessary to up the Emmy glitz factor and is not a little sad.

Moreover, the ``guest actor'' nominations generally acknowledge stunt casting more than strong performances. Lastly, all the nominees for variety or music show performance are comedians whose ``performances'' consist largely of delivering their material, suggesting it's the strength of the punch lines and the comics' personae being honored more than any performing. Drop all those, and you've lost nine useless categories. Rename the remaining categories outstanding comedy/variety performance and outstanding dramatic performance, and incorporate film and miniseries roles into the mix.

And how messed up is it that there's an awards show - our Emmys, naturally - that gives awards to other awards shows? Any category that has to be padded with other awards shows as nominees is clearly a useless category, so lose them.

3) Embrace cable programming rather than complain about it.

If, in fact, the Emmys are to continue to represent the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, not the Academy of Network Television Arts and Sciences, quality cable programming should comfortably commingle alongside network fare throughout the nominations, including the major categories. Prior to this year, only ``The Larry Sanders Show'' managed significant showings in major categories, and the Emmy losses Larry suffered should have asterisks next to them in the history books: anti-cable bias.

Fortunately, there was less whining than usual this year from the networks about cable outlets like HBO putting a lot of money into their films and miniseries and the fact that their series don't play by the rules by cranking out 22-episode seasons. (You never heard the networks complain about low-budget programming getting snubbed.)

The networks must simply accept that, like everywhere else in the world, big money tends to get its way: ``Titanic'' - not ``The Sweet Hereafter'' won the Oscar. Let's be grateful that when HBO pours money into something, the result is a product that makes TV look good, like last year's ``From the Earth to the Moon,'' or this year's ``A Lesson Before Dying.'' When the networks put tons of money into something, the result tends to wear its crassness on its sleeve, like ``Noah's Ark'' or ``Cleopatra.''

Tonight's ceremony will be a crucial measuring stick as to whether cable is gaining acceptance in the network-dominated TV industry. ``The Sopranos,'' hands down, deserves to win outstanding drama series - just check out how it dominated the writing category. ``The Practice'' and ``NYPD Blue'' are very good shows, but the first season of ``The Sopranos'' was something sublime. If the academy declines to acknowledge this fact, it still has a long way to go.

(The fact that ``Sopranos'' earned four nominations opposite the ``NYPD Blue'' episode that killed off Jimmy Smits, however, ensures that all its nominations will cancel each other out and ``Blue'' will cruise to easy victory.)

4) Understand what ``comedy'' means.

``Ally McBeal'' has inspired a spate of new hourlong comedy series this upcoming fall season, led by ``Freaks and Geeks.'' Writing for hourlong comedies and half-hour sitcoms are different disciplines. Hourlong shows get away with funkier, looser pacing and more character-based humor, while a sitcom has to keep popping and quipping to maintain audience laughter. Because of this, the only advantage ``Ally McBeal'' doesn't have over its shtickier competition is that the academy hasn't gotten comfortable with rewarding hour comedies. Yet.

Some of the funniest shows on TV - ``Mr. Show With Bob and David,'' ``The Chris Rock Show,'' ``Late Night With Conan O'Brien'' - are nominated in the category of outstanding writing for a variety or music program. Needless to say, variety and music tends to be an afterthought on these shows; comedy is foremost. The outstanding writing for a comedy series category frequently rewards what used to be called very special episodes, which concentrated more on ladling on poignancy or tackling issues rather than eliciting good, solid laughs.

There should be a category that acknowledges pure comedy - perhaps rename the variety/music writing category ``outstanding comedy writing.'' (Writing for music programs being something of an oxymoron anyway.)

5) Never hire a gag writer who's ever written for an awards show in the past.

Awards shows operate on a template that has grown tired and wheezy. The Emmy folks might look to the MTV awards shows for inspiration here - there might be some mighty embarrassing moments on those shows, but their unpredictability confers upon them something of a must-see status. Instead of the usual noxious song-and-dance routines, introduce viewers to, say, an inspired comedy troupe that only needs a high-profile gig to break out of the obscurity of its cable channel, or a famous performer revisiting a justly beloved routine. Dispense with ornate, orchestral introductions and podium approaches.

In short: Make the Emmys worth watching again, give viewers smart, useful guidance as to what they should be watching, and who's to say that the world wouldn't become a better place?

CAPTION(S):

2 Photos

PHOTO (1 -- cover -- color) Too many categories? Too confusing? A modest proposal for Fixing the Emmys.

(2) HBO's ``The Sopranos,'' a drama-and-comedy mix that includes Tony Sirico, left, Steve Van Zandt, James Gandolfini, Michael Imperioli and Vincent Pastore, is a critic's favorite at tonight's Emmy Awards.