Dial File - Steve Bornfeld: Apples and oranges and Emmys

Friday, July 30, 1999 | 9:24 a.m.

Steve Bornfeld is the Sun features editor. His television column appears Fridays. Reach him at 259-4081 or steveb@vegas.com.

As Johnny Carson might have put it in one of his classic Art Fern/"Tea Time Movie" bits: "We now return to Showtime, HBO, My Wife's OB-GYN and Hymie the Wonder Mule in "The Cable Thing That Swallowed The Networks," or "How to Succeed in Emmys Without Really Trying."

Either title -- minus the gynecologist and Hymie the Wonder Mule (hey, now there's a sitcom pairing!) -- could subtitle September's Emmy awards, the nominations for which bestowed upon cable, particularly pay cable, a cornucopia of kudos.

Richly deserved honors? Yes. Wrongly placed recognition? Yes.

Why? Because pay cable and network TV are unevenly matched gladiators locked in lopsided warfare in the Emmy Coliseum. The nets' faults have been copiously chronicled here, but fair is fair. Unfair advantage: pay cable.

It's TV shows flaunting creative freedom vs. TV shows strapped into creative straightjackets -- the classic apple/orange comparison, except the apples are topless and the oranges wear pasties (forgive the kinky fruit analogy and be grateful bananas weren't mentioned).

A recap: HBO was runner-up in Emmy nominations (74), trailing only NBC (82). HBO's mesmerizing mob drama "The Sopranos" couldn't refuse an Emmy-leading 16 nominations, becoming the first cable series nominated for best drama, and in its first year of eligibility -- a tradition-busting distinction that should chill network execs right down to their Gucci loafers -- while HBO's "Sex in the City" sashayed into the comedy category. And pay cable penetrated the TV movie ranks with three nominees, HBO's "The Rat Pack" and "A Lesson Before Dying" and Showtime's "The Baby Dance."

Having slam-dunked the nets in TV movies long ago -- the nets placed zero nominees in that category, completed by basic cable contenders TNT and A&E -- pay cable is now applying its sizzle to series, where its Emmy clout promises to balloon by next year with "Oz" and "Arli$$" (HBO) and "Linc's," "Beggars and Choosers," "Hoop Life" and "Rude Awakenings" (Showtime).

Why should the nets toss a tantrum? Because:

While networks bow deeply to the demands of advertisers, ratings and mass tastes, which sap a show's creative juice to make it widely palatable, pay cable serves only subscribers who expect provocative programming.

Pay cable lavishes more money, time and attention on relatively fewer products, treating them like fine meals, while networks churn 'em out en masse like a sausage factory.

While network offerings are riddled with attention-wrecking commercials, pay cable projects are seamless, movie-style presentations.

Raw language and nudity -- used with discretion and in context -- enhance dramatic effect for pay cable programs, which, unlike feature films, have demonstrated a sense of proportion. Result: Its shows often resonate with more depth and truthfulness than network programs, which can appear cartoonish by comparison.

Ironically, cable killed off its CableAce awards last year to go nose-to-nose with the Big Bad Bruisers of Broadcasting in the Emmy Ego-fest.

And in this apple/orange face-off, who do you think has the bigger banana?