Written by Chris Magyar
Friday, 19 February 2010 04:05
Having tacos with my friend Chris Holland the other day, he mentioned a film that will be playing at this year’s SXSW, a documentary called Saturday Night directed by James Franco. The movie follows the team at Saturday Night Live as it puts together an episode for one week with John Malkovich. The movie sounds interesting enough, but I commented that it’s a pity we only get this inside look during one of the worst seasons in one of the worst patches of SNL history. Chris agreed that the show is missing more than it hits these days, but I contend that the staff has simply forgotten how to put together a funny sketch, and any comedy that’s resulted from this group’s efforts has been accidental. The uncomfortable silence of the audience during most sketches proves my point, but I have this need to kick a puppy while it’s down, so let’s look at some randomly selected skits on Hulu and pull apart what makes the current show so awful.
1
The belief that repetition is, in itself, funny
This skits fails purely due to the writing, as all the performers here clearly know what they’re doing. Also, I should mention that I think Kristin Wiig is extremely talented, because I’m going to pick on a few skits that rest purely on her. It starts off promisingly enough, with a genuine laugh even coming at Lydia’s first “don’t make me sing.” The humor here, one quickly garners, will come from Lydia insisting on singing despite everyone at the party only requesting for William to play piano. The stakes are upped when the first song plays an Lydia can’t figure out when to start singing. Up to now, everything’s being handled with perfect comedic timing, and the absurdity of the uncomfortable situation is escalating nicely. Now, in a truly funny skit, there would continue to be developments. But here’s where it hits the wall. The punchline isn’t something unexpected or surprising. The writers simply have Lydia repeat her phrases and then throw them around as non sequitors for an ending that you can feel the air leak out of. Four hideous prop cats are thrown in as an attempt to ramp things up, but by this point, the skit has already overstayed its welcome, and the only exit the writers can come up with is a walkout on the part of the unnecessarily large group of supporting characters. Is this a terrible skit? Actually, no, it’s one of the best, because it at least shows promise and the actors attempt to carry it. But it does exhibit the writers’ lack of imagination when it comes to sewing up an “annoying character” sketch, usually just repeating the one funny line in the hopes that its repetition will equal absurdity which will equal humor.
2
Poor impression choices
Let’s set aside the weird decision to parody people who belong squarely to the grandparents’ generation of the audience. Very little care was put into these impressions, and in a celebrity skit like this, the impressions are almost everything. Hader’s Vincent Price is atrocious — and it’s not like Price is especially difficult to pull off. Not only is the voice and inflection all wrong, he can’t even get Price’s basic effervescent demeanor down. The writers don’t help matters, as Price isn’t given any believable reactions to the “mayhem” that ensues. As someone with a fantastic, slapstick sense of humor, it would have been more true to form, and more funny, to have Price going with the chaos instead of playing naysayer. For reference, here’s actual Vincent dealing with television kookiness:
Then, it’s Wiig as Katharine Hepburn, which entails Wiig doing her stock 1930s girl accent and talking fast. Far too nasal for someone who was known for, above all, impeccable diction. Howcome there’s no play on Hepburn’s unflappable grace? She’s just portrayed as mannish here, which is about as surface read as you can get. Again, a reference:
And then there’s Liberace. It’s clear that the go-to laugh here is purely Liberace’s flamboyance, but Fred Armisen plays generic gay instead of doing anything that approximates the real person. Especially in the early 1950s … this appears to be a parody of much later Liberace. So what we’re actually getting is a pastiche of impressions based on already watered-down popular notions of long-dead people — basically, impressions of impressions. Again, why would SNL, with its traditional focus on a fairly young (high school and college, typically) audience, trot these out? Most troubling is that this Vincent Price skit is a recurring one, so it wasn’t like they were just making use of the fact that James Franco looks like James Dean. And don’t get me started on the Marilyn Monroe impression, especially when Wiig does a far superior one, as we’re about to see in the worst sketch of the year so far…
3
An aversion to physical comedy
Words cannot describe how uncomfortable this sketch is. Once again, we have an unnecessary number of supporting characters, with Samberg’s in particular trying add some “comedy” (or steal some thunder?) with his tautological manner of speaking. Really, we only need three men in the room reacting to Wiig’s echt-Monroe, ideally each in a different way. I suspect that Barkley’s acting was so wooden and awful that another character was written in, though that doesn’t explain why he’s still given the linchpin characteristic of actually liking everything. The build of the joke’s reveal is lame — only the reaction shots tell us that her fire-blowing is unsexy. It would have been much better to start with the hot chocolate. Jenny Stark’s character is given nothing to do but be jealous. It’s a one-joke sketch that hinges on Wiig’s impression (quite good) and Barkley’s reactions (utterly wooden). So what do I mean by an aversion to physical comedy?
Take a look at the blocking in this sketch. It’s static. Nobody moves a muscle but Wiig. This is a basic “gross character” sketch that depends on reactions and hilariously gross situations. To truly ramp this up, Wiig’s character should have interacted physically with the men, or especially Stark (to give her some reason for being there). Even in the horridly lowbrow Mango skits, there was something to laugh about in the sheer physical comedy over-the-top gusto that Chris Kattan put into the things. Too often, this SNL troupe seems to be performing skits that would work on a page, but aren’t given much thought theatrically. Remember, SNL’s stock in trade, going all the way back to Chevy Chase, is physical comedy. When we get glimpses of it now, we can see that the performers are capable, but for some reason the writers keep each character in his or her own bubble. Frasier did a better job of slapstick situations than this crew.
I am looking forward to Franco’s documentary. If nothing else, I hope I find out why these basic flaws exist week in and week out, and see if there are any glimmers of hope that SNL will stop trying too hard to be absurdist and get back to the basics of sketch comedy humor.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 19th, 2010 at 4:05 pm and is filed under Commentary, Features.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
19/10
Friday, 19 February 2010 04:05
Having tacos with my friend Chris Holland the other day, he mentioned a film that will be playing at this year’s SXSW, a documentary called Saturday Night directed by James Franco. The movie follows the team at Saturday Night Live as it puts together an episode for one week with John Malkovich. The movie sounds interesting enough, but I commented that it’s a pity we only get this inside look during one of the worst seasons in one of the worst patches of SNL history. Chris agreed that the show is missing more than it hits these days, but I contend that the staff has simply forgotten how to put together a funny sketch, and any comedy that’s resulted from this group’s efforts has been accidental. The uncomfortable silence of the audience during most sketches proves my point, but I have this need to kick a puppy while it’s down, so let’s look at some randomly selected skits on Hulu and pull apart what makes the current show so awful.
1
The belief that repetition is, in itself, funny
This skits fails purely due to the writing, as all the performers here clearly know what they’re doing. Also, I should mention that I think Kristin Wiig is extremely talented, because I’m going to pick on a few skits that rest purely on her. It starts off promisingly enough, with a genuine laugh even coming at Lydia’s first “don’t make me sing.” The humor here, one quickly garners, will come from Lydia insisting on singing despite everyone at the party only requesting for William to play piano. The stakes are upped when the first song plays an Lydia can’t figure out when to start singing. Up to now, everything’s being handled with perfect comedic timing, and the absurdity of the uncomfortable situation is escalating nicely. Now, in a truly funny skit, there would continue to be developments. But here’s where it hits the wall. The punchline isn’t something unexpected or surprising. The writers simply have Lydia repeat her phrases and then throw them around as non sequitors for an ending that you can feel the air leak out of. Four hideous prop cats are thrown in as an attempt to ramp things up, but by this point, the skit has already overstayed its welcome, and the only exit the writers can come up with is a walkout on the part of the unnecessarily large group of supporting characters. Is this a terrible skit? Actually, no, it’s one of the best, because it at least shows promise and the actors attempt to carry it. But it does exhibit the writers’ lack of imagination when it comes to sewing up an “annoying character” sketch, usually just repeating the one funny line in the hopes that its repetition will equal absurdity which will equal humor.
2
Poor impression choices
Let’s set aside the weird decision to parody people who belong squarely to the grandparents’ generation of the audience. Very little care was put into these impressions, and in a celebrity skit like this, the impressions are almost everything. Hader’s Vincent Price is atrocious — and it’s not like Price is especially difficult to pull off. Not only is the voice and inflection all wrong, he can’t even get Price’s basic effervescent demeanor down. The writers don’t help matters, as Price isn’t given any believable reactions to the “mayhem” that ensues. As someone with a fantastic, slapstick sense of humor, it would have been more true to form, and more funny, to have Price going with the chaos instead of playing naysayer. For reference, here’s actual Vincent dealing with television kookiness:
Then, it’s Wiig as Katharine Hepburn, which entails Wiig doing her stock 1930s girl accent and talking fast. Far too nasal for someone who was known for, above all, impeccable diction. Howcome there’s no play on Hepburn’s unflappable grace? She’s just portrayed as mannish here, which is about as surface read as you can get. Again, a reference:
And then there’s Liberace. It’s clear that the go-to laugh here is purely Liberace’s flamboyance, but Fred Armisen plays generic gay instead of doing anything that approximates the real person. Especially in the early 1950s … this appears to be a parody of much later Liberace. So what we’re actually getting is a pastiche of impressions based on already watered-down popular notions of long-dead people — basically, impressions of impressions. Again, why would SNL, with its traditional focus on a fairly young (high school and college, typically) audience, trot these out? Most troubling is that this Vincent Price skit is a recurring one, so it wasn’t like they were just making use of the fact that James Franco looks like James Dean. And don’t get me started on the Marilyn Monroe impression, especially when Wiig does a far superior one, as we’re about to see in the worst sketch of the year so far…
3
An aversion to physical comedy
Words cannot describe how uncomfortable this sketch is. Once again, we have an unnecessary number of supporting characters, with Samberg’s in particular trying add some “comedy” (or steal some thunder?) with his tautological manner of speaking. Really, we only need three men in the room reacting to Wiig’s echt-Monroe, ideally each in a different way. I suspect that Barkley’s acting was so wooden and awful that another character was written in, though that doesn’t explain why he’s still given the linchpin characteristic of actually liking everything. The build of the joke’s reveal is lame — only the reaction shots tell us that her fire-blowing is unsexy. It would have been much better to start with the hot chocolate. Jenny Stark’s character is given nothing to do but be jealous. It’s a one-joke sketch that hinges on Wiig’s impression (quite good) and Barkley’s reactions (utterly wooden). So what do I mean by an aversion to physical comedy?
Take a look at the blocking in this sketch. It’s static. Nobody moves a muscle but Wiig. This is a basic “gross character” sketch that depends on reactions and hilariously gross situations. To truly ramp this up, Wiig’s character should have interacted physically with the men, or especially Stark (to give her some reason for being there). Even in the horridly lowbrow Mango skits, there was something to laugh about in the sheer physical comedy over-the-top gusto that Chris Kattan put into the things. Too often, this SNL troupe seems to be performing skits that would work on a page, but aren’t given much thought theatrically. Remember, SNL’s stock in trade, going all the way back to Chevy Chase, is physical comedy. When we get glimpses of it now, we can see that the performers are capable, but for some reason the writers keep each character in his or her own bubble. Frasier did a better job of slapstick situations than this crew.
I am looking forward to Franco’s documentary. If nothing else, I hope I find out why these basic flaws exist week in and week out, and see if there are any glimmers of hope that SNL will stop trying too hard to be absurdist and get back to the basics of sketch comedy humor.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 19th, 2010 at 4:05 pm and is filed under Commentary, Features. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.