OT: SNL's New Season Begins
-
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 16, 2016 08:45 PM)
IMHOonce they got past the killer Trump/Hillary debate opener, this was a pretty weak episode.
Agreed.
I do recall that Hanks hosted in the Bush/Dukakis year of 1988 which had a sketch with the famous line from "Dukakis"(Jon Lovitz) during a debate against George Bush Sr(Dana Carvey)"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." Meanwhile, with Dukasis heading down , they had an episode where Dukakis used his leftover campaign funds to don a silk robe and pipe, and put on a Hugh Hefner-like TV party "Dukakis After Dark."
I remember all that tooand I also remember one of the more disgusting moments ever on SNL, one that I believe cost Dukakis quite a few votes: it was a pre-recorded segment of a fake pro-Dukakis ad. The ad. began with an image of a radiant young Barbara Bush n her wedding day with George Bush Sr followed by a seriously unflattering, wrinkly image of grandmother Barbara Bush in 1992. The Voice-over went something like: 'If that's what's he's done to his wife, what'll he do to the country?' The image then changed to the most flattering possible 1992 image of a svelte Kitty Dukakis looking very chic and flirtatious with the VO continuing 'She looks just fine!'
Only Michael Moore's hounding of an infirm-but-trying-to-be-gracious Charleton Heston ranks with it in terms of ill-judged senior abuse.
I mention this incident now in part because some of the jokes about Trump's daughter Tiffany this week were a little callous (I know that they were only trying to spotlight Trump's arguably shabby treatment of her but they also re-humiliated her.) If SNL keeps digging on that front they may yet provoke some legitimate backlash in Trump's favor.
I forgot that Emily Blunt can sing. They said on Weekend Update she will be the new Mary Poppins? Is that a good thing? Well, they remade Psycho.
Could be good so long as they have some good new tunes (this is a the-kids-are-now-grown-up sequel not a remake) The director is Rob Marshall of Chicago (Into the Woods etc.) fame who's never done much for me, but Mr Hamilton Lin-Manuel Miranda is co-lead (in a D v Dyke-ish part?) and surely must be helping with songs and staging etc.. Fingers Crossed!
Only other good thing in the episode: Kate MacKinnon(of course), doing that funny Russian woman character on Update who is BEGGING to die to escape a bleak life in Russia. MacKinnon also does an Italian woman and a German woman(well, actually German President Angela Merkel)using outrageous accent humor,and gets away with it.
Y'know, maybe MacKinnon's wearing off on me but her Russian lady didn't work for me this time. Much better for me was Vanessa Bayer's Disney-musical-tryhard. I laughed a lot at her loopy intonation.
I also liked the CHONK clothing ad.
Beyond that Blunt was a pleasant presence all night. In a way that nobody would have predicted a few years back her star is really rising as she gets to early middle age. It's a pleasure to spend time with her.
Here's hoping that Tom Hanks with musical guest Lady Gaga - can take things up a notch next week. He's always got the comedy chops to make it work better.
Hanks will probably be great, but his latest Da Vinci Code movie, Inferno, is getting some of the worst reviews of his career, which might be a bit of a downer.
Eventually, the Weekend Update spent about two jokes on the WikiLeaks stuff, which remains important in that it has some "bombshells" not so much about about political evildoing but about basic political chicanery. Butsomebody hacked it, so its being treated like inadmissible evidence.
I think that the fact that the info was almost certainly hacked and then leaked by the Russians makes everyone a little queasy if they're honest. Certainly if the shoe were on the other foot and it was Republicans who'd been hacked by Russia (or Noth Korea or.) I think that Republicans would be claiming treason etc. by anyone who made anything out of the leaks. Democrats by way of contrast have been quite restrained in response but perhaps the drowning out of the episode by Trump's flailing around has made it easy for them to be pretty chilled out.
Update: I see Trump has tweeted that he regards the latest SNL as a 'hit job'. He really is thin-skinned. Beyond that I think I know what's really going on with that: at the beginning of his campaign (even before he'd officially announced he was running IIRC), Trump was pretty clear about how he thought he could win. He thought, roughly, that eventually most Republicans woud fall in behind him if he was their nominee so that he'd win all the normal Republican states and that then in addition he as an iconic NYC, urban, pretty profane, somewhat heterodox (open to gun control, open to taxing the rich, etc.) figure would put a whole range of normally Democratic states in play for Republicans. Trump explicitly said that he thought he'd have a shot at winning NY and NJ and PA and even CA.
Deep down, I think it must be killing Trump now that he hasn't been able to carry that outline of -
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 01:53 PM)
IMHOonce they got past the killer Trump/Hillary debate opener, this was a pretty weak episode.
Agreed.
And again, I backpedal to note that while I watch SNL regularly, I can't say it has really "hit the big buttons" of comedy on a consistent basis for years. Update usually has a few good topical jokes and maybe a surprise guest star(like Tina Fey, or, the one and only time that James Gandolfini showed up as Tony Soprano and barely said a word) and maybe a good character(like most of Kate's) butas the other night showedlots of time they've got about two minutes of material to fill a six minute sketch.
SNL HAS had very funny years and sketches, off of the top of my head, Dana Carvey doing James Stewart as an ornery old coot who got drunk off of "some rotgut whiskey called "cho-cho" " was a funny bit, if not a famous one. (It was on one of Mike Myer's "Dieter" sketches); or Chris Farley competing shirtless with Patrick Swayze to become a Chippendale's dancer; and the weird recurring sketch "Toonces the Cat Who Could Drive a Car," which amused me because of the cat's name(Toonces?), and the fact that a dummy cat was inserted for a live one right near the end(a film clip of the car crashing off a cliff).
And so forth and so onand that was probably 20 years ago. Not to mention all the early stuff everybody loved: "Two wild and crazy guys," "Baseball been a berry, berry good to me," "Never mind," etc.
I think it was ex-cast member Gilbert Gottfried who said "SNL is an OK restaurant at a great location." That was answered by one of the founders who said, "Its the first five years of the show that MADE it a great location."
Modernly, there is the issue that writers(especially) can go to all the talk shows, and the Daily Show, and Comedy Central, to work. Its hard to get the best over to SNL.
I do recall that Hanks hosted in the Bush/Dukakis year of 1988 which had a sketch with the famous line from "Dukakis"(Jon Lovitz) during a debate against George Bush Sr(Dana Carvey)"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." Meanwhile, with Dukasis heading down , they had an episode where Dukakis used his leftover campaign funds to don a silk robe and pipe, and put on a Hugh Hefner-like TV party "Dukakis After Dark."
I remember all that tooand I also remember one of the more disgusting moments ever on SNL, one that I believe cost Dukakis quite a few votes: it was a pre-recorded segment of a fake pro-Dukakis ad. The ad. began with an image of a radiant young Barbara Bush n her wedding day with George Bush Sr followed by a seriously unflattering, wrinkly image of grandmother Barbara Bush in 1992. The Voice-over went something like: 'If that's what's he's done to his wife, what'll he do to the country?' The image then changed to the most flattering possible 1992 image of a svelte Kitty Dukakis looking very chic and flirtatious with the VO continuing 'She looks just fine!'
Only Michael Moore's hounding of an infirm-but-trying-to-be-gracious Charleton Heston ranks with it in terms of ill-judged senior abuse.
The brutality/backfire of picking on folks' appearances is always a risk with our snarky comedians.
I've read that the modern Democratic party in the US has quite a few high earners in its ranksthe California/West Coast (including Silicon Valley and Holllywood) and the New York/East Coast heavy hitters like the party for social issues and certain of its other policies. One pundit said the Democrats are now "the party of the Winners," which is fine as far as it goes, butcompassion?
So you end up, I think, modernly, with "rich (mainly white) folks making fun of poor folks" on all these talk shows that go after Trump(and how quickly he was seen as "just another Republican") to go after people they just don't care about. All those people being attacked BETTER be racist and sexist and Xenophobic, etc. Because otherwise, its just jumping on the backs of the weak.
I mention this incident now in part because some of the jokes about Trump's daughter Tiffany this week were a little callous (I know that they were only trying to spotlight Trump's arguably shabby treatment of her but they also re-humiliated her.) If SNL keeps digging on that front they may yet provoke some legitimate backlash in Trump's favor.
I recall some years ago when Mike Myers and Dana Carvey did Wayne's World, they did a "Top Ten Foxes" and reached Chelsea Clinton(when she was a pre-teen)and started laughing and acting embarrassed. Said Myers as Wayne: "Well, not now so much, but we have every belief she will blossom into foxhood."
All re-runs of that sketch remove the two minutes devoted to Chelsea.
I forgot that Emily Blunt can sing. They said on Weekend Update she will be the new Mary Poppins? Is that a good thing? Well, they remade Psycho.
Could be good so long as they have some good new tunes (this is a the-kids-are-now-grown-up sequel not a remake) The director is Rob Marshall of Chicago (Into the Woods etc.) fame who's never done much for me, but Mr H -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 17, 2016 08:15 PM)
I think it was ex-cast member Gilbert Gottfried who said "SNL is an OK restaurant at a great location." That was answered by one of the founders who said, "Its the first five years of the show that MADE it a great location."
Two good points!
The issues have been shunted aside. We're in for four great weeks of slime and sludge. I'm already laughing at the TV ads running in my city.
I feel for Americans living in very competitive states because at this point you've been dealing with media saturation of negativity for over a year. it's just awful. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:29 AM)
I think SOMETHING's left. And we have one more debate.
Well, the final debate is now behind us, and what can we say? A few thoughts I have:- Although debates are a pretty crusty old format, they do ultimately give us quite a good look at the candidates.
- Trump was pretty close to Hillary in the polls before the first debate, but he's been dreadfully exposed across the three of them. In every debate, Trump was OK for about 20-30 mins then he quickly fell apart, started making mistakes big and small, was often reduced to blathering incoherently and quite rudely, often as a prelude to a final big mistake or two in the closing minutes each time. And he never learned across the debates. E.g., in the third debate he was still maintaining that he was opposed to invading Iraq back in 2003 even though he'd been called out on that lie in the previous two debates. Are 'only 20-30 good minutes'+'No Learning' a function of basic limitations/stupidity [Trump reminds me a lot of the average undergrad who can't concentrate for a whole 50 minute or hour lecture - as a teacher you have to put in something like a discussion break around the 25 minute mark or you lose the average kid] or laziness/lack of prep? I'm not sure, but it probably doesn't matter: you can't have a Pres. who won't focus/stay controlled for more than 25 mins at a time and who won't learn, no matter what explains those weaknesses.
- The sense of Hillary passing and Trump failing the big 5 hour job Interview has been so profound that I now believe that even if the 'Grab them by the.' tape hadn't emerged between the first and second debates I think the debates would probably have been decisive enough against Trump to cost him the election. And, like almost everybody else I now believe the Presidential election's essentially over.
- These are going to be a humiliating few weeks for Mr Trump. Let's hope that that doesn't lead to too much ugliness either from Trump himself or his supporters.
-
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 07:15 AM)
I've liked the fact that this board about an ever-aging horror/thriller classic has been allowed by IMdb to encapsulate other topics, generally the topics being movies(which are a great topic in so many ways: historical, social, "fantastical," as a study in business at the highest-earning levels (look no further than Psycho for THAT topic), as a look at our basic-instinct sexual and predatory natures (look no further than Psycho for THAT topic, too)..and on and on. For some years now,here. Plus, Psycho gets discussed plenty as new people come to the Board.
This is an "SNL" thread, and "SNL" has its own historical value now. I've been reading a book about Mike Ovitz's mega-agency of the 80's and 90's, CAA, and part of his strategy early on was to sign as many SNL players and writers as he could. Other agencies scorned this the SNL players were "TV players" and had no traction in movies, said they. Wrong.
But "SNL" has kicked in most handily in recent years as a political show, and spiked in ratings during Presidential years. Thus a "swerve" here to that most dangerous of topics: politics. Ain't it politics and religion that are not supposed to be discussed? We've done both here, and I'm OK with it, but my hopes are that we haven't lost a few of our regular correspondents when this ever-more devisive topic turns up.
It looks like the Presidential election is indeed overbut the next question is: who gets Congress? For if the Reps keep one or both houses, President Clinton doesn't get much chance to do much. And its been ever thus here in America for a number of years. The last two sessions of Congress were the least productive(fewest bills to the President) in something like 95 years. Its like "tic-tac-toe": all "Xs" cancel out all "Os" and nothing gets done. As I've said, if people are getting killed because gun control laws are too lax, that's simply the most visible consequence of a political system that is locked in stalemate on EVERY issue.
But of course, we don't particularly need Congress and the Prez to be working together for things to get done. You are more versed on international politics than I, swanstep(and I really have no need to be), but the usual Ivy Leaguers will continue to have the usual international negotiations andthe world will go on. Meanwhile, a Federal bureaucracy that has withstood Presidents of all parties will go on. Its work.
Trump may be going down, but he was fun while he lasted. He said things and did things that aren't supposed to be said and done, and I doubt we will get that again for a long time. Hillary was likely expecting any of the "usual suspect" Republicans to easily overcome in the General; Trump (not really a Republican) showed up to treat her like Rosie O'Donnell and, wellno hand-shaking at these debates.
There will be said "but Trump was sexist and racist and Xenophobic" andyeah, probably so. And he will lose accordingly. But that's not really where his power came from, even if he picked up some people of those sentiments. His power came from people who are Howard Beale 40 years later"tired of the bullt." It was nice to talk about it for awhile. Now we can go back the usual program.
The two party system is great, but the problem with it is that one has to embrace one or the other. Or not. Hillary will hold the fort for the Dems, but there is corruption there, a cursory read of the WikiLeaks documents shows it. "Go to jail" corruption? Naw, just everyday "this is how the world works" corruption. Pay to play. Big donors become ambassadors. Money talks, bs walks. And the systematic destruction of political opponents, certainly in the same party. Its been ever thus.
I suppose the two good "Godfathers" and "Chinatown" together set our wised-up sense of cynicism "at the movies." They are seminal works. In "Chinatown," Noah Cross may have murdered his son-in-law and had sex with his daughter(consensual, said she, but really?).but he made Southern California happen in a big way. He won. Nobody tried to stop him, nobody could stop him, nobody WANTED to stop him. They had jobs to keep, money to make, families to raise. That's why Jake Gittes looks like a bit of a chump at the end. Nobody listens to him.
As for the "Godfathers," here were the movies that told us "power isn't given, you take it," "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" and that indicated any number of judges, politicians, reporters, and cops were "on the payroll" of the mob so as to make sure certain things happened certain ways. The Corleones were a bit better than the Barzinis and the Tattlaglias, but not much, really. And America wised up to the scene.
I'm cynical about politics, but just crazy about my fellow human beings. Out here, I go to family events and parties and meetings in which civility is the norm, family love is strong, and the machinations of political power are, frankly, ignored . (A lot of people don't vote for a reason but SURPRISE the partie -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 04:09 PM)
I'm cynical about politics, but just crazy about my fellow human beings. Out here, I go to family events and parties and meetings in which civility is the norm, family love is strong, and the machinations of political power are, frankly, ignored.
Post-election Thanksgivings really put all this to the test don't they? At one I went to there was a huge generational gap and as the afternoon wore on the oldies sat around getting drunker, swapping their conspiracies theories about how Republicans had been robbed (this was in the Clinton '90s) gradually working their way back to Nixon (they thought Watergate was a crock, etc.)
Anyway, my interest will be in seeing if we get some sort of landslide, and if one or both houses of Congress change hands.
Things have really changed in Congress in the last 20 years - Repubs and Democrats are now much more ideologically uniform so that there are no more liberal republicans and there are no more conservative democrats. It used to be accepted that the President should get his or her choices for cabinet and for the Supreme Court at least assuming the relevant professional associations thought the candidate was first-class. That's now completely broken down
So, yes, it seem that Hillary Clinton will be exactly as powerful as the levers of power she holds. If Demos take the Senate she'll get to appoint Justices, ratify international climate change treaties etc., if not not. If Demos take the House she'll get to enact her tax plans, patch up Obamacare, etc., if not not. The latter still looks very unlikely (Democrats will win the popular vote for the House by millions but the district boundaries that were redrawn after 2010 are very hard to overcome). Maybe only my beloved
A Face In The Crowd
ending to this election cycle + a few special circumstances tipping particular local races would give Hill. everything. And winning an ultra-slender victory in either the Senate or The House can be a curse as Obama found in 2009: the last few Reps or Senators you need then have maximum bargaining power and since they're always in the most precarious political positions in their home district or state they often make brutal demands. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:19 PM)
Things have really changed in Congress in the last 20 years
One other thing that's really changed since even the '90s is that the media in general seems to be a persistent target now of partisan ire. I guess I grew up with movies just taking for granted that the NY Times or The Wash Post in particular were veritable beacons of responsible truth-telling.
E.g., I recently got around to watching Fire-starter (1984) (which was one of the few 1980s influence on this summer's netflix hit Stranger Things that I hadn't seen) It's a very mediocre film as it happens but I did feel nostalgic when we're shown as a happy ending, Drew Barrymore taking her story to the NY Times.
I suspect that we don't get that ending nowadays since the NY Times is now scorned/loathed by half the country, which is a bit depressing. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 09:28 AM)
I'm cynical about politics, but just crazy about my fellow human beings. Out here, I go to family events and parties and meetings in which civility is the norm, family love is strong, and the machinations of political power are, frankly, ignored.
Post-election Thanksgivings really put all this to the test don't they? At one I went to there was a huge generational gap and as the afternoon wore on the oldies sat around getting drunker, swapping their conspiracies theories about how Republicans had been robbed (this was in the Clinton '90s) gradually working their way back to Nixon (they thought Watergate was a crock, etc.)
That can happen, too, but I've generally been lucky to not have family gatherings go that way. I've been at some general parties where discussions went that way. I've had a fascination with the "political junkies" I've met in my life both parties who will hold a fiery certainty of conspiracies and "they wuz robbed" things til the day they died. I believe that fiery political certainty actually gave these folks pleasure the same pleasure movies give me, or baseball gives others. Its a reason to live. And I suppose if one believes that political party matters in a certain way, its meaningful.
But honestly, I had one family member who was watching news channels on his deathbed. He left this earth in a political frenzy. Probably as happy as a clam at high tide.
Anyway, my interest will be in seeing if we get some sort of landslide, and if one or both houses of Congress change hands.
Things have really changed in Congress in the last 20 years - Repubs and Democrats are now much more ideologically uniform so that there are no more liberal republicans and there are no more conservative democrats.
This is what has created the "tic tac toe" effect to which I refer. No compromise, no votesnothing happens. Its as if the political/governmental apparatus built in America through 1992 or so will just have to be as good as it gets for awhile.
It used to be accepted that the President should get his or her choices for cabinet and for the Supreme Court at least assuming the relevant professional associations thought the candidate was first-class. That's now completely broken down
Yes.
So, yes, it seem that Hillary Clinton will be exactly as powerful as the levers of power she holds. If Demos take the Senate she'll get to appoint Justices, ratify international climate change treaties etc., if not not.
And there are certain rules WITHIN the rules. Currently, the Repbulicans hold the Senatebut 6 additional Democratic votes are necessary to REALLY get bills to pass(avoid cloture?). So nothing moves.
If Demos take the House she'll get to enact her tax plans, patch up Obamacare, etc., if not not. The latter still looks very unlikely (Democrats will win the popular vote for the House by millions but the district boundaries that were
redrawn after 2010 are very hard to overcome).
Maybe only my beloved A Face In The Crowd ending to this election cycle + a few special circumstances tipping particular local races would give Hill. everything.
We just don't know, which makes elections kinda fun, anymore.
BTW, your "Face in the Crowd" ending strikes me as being found right nowin the WikiLeaks remarks of some of Hillary's peoplenot Hillary herself, but her operatives. A real contempt for people within their own party, starting with the Sanders faction. But THAT's been ever thus, too. The most lacerating personal hatreds are often intra-party. Trump has rather transferred that rage to the General Election against Hillarybut then, they may really be intra-party, too.
And winning an ultra-slender victory in either the Senate or The House can be a curse as Obama found in 2009: the last few Reps or Senators you need then have maximum bargaining power and since they're always in the most precarious political positions in their home district or state they often make brutal demands.
Well, it keeps a lot of people employed, I guess. In DC. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 05:15 AM)
God this episode was awful. I didn't laugh once (OK maybe a slight chuckle at 100 floors of terror with David Pumpkins).
Hanks' monologue as America's Dad was OK, and probably the best bit of the night, but it was more poignant than funny.
Yikes.
Update: It was the highest-rating SNL ep. for 8 Years! And, reading around now, most people seem to have really liked the ep. - AVCub gave it an A- (best of season grade), all of which of which leaves me feeling like either I or everyone else is on crazy pills. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 05:49 PM)
God this episode was awful. I didn't laugh once (OK maybe a slight chuckle at 100 floors of terror with David Pumpkins).
WeellllI liked it. A lot. It rates back to the Margot Robbie opener(which repeats next week) in good stuff. Perhaps Hanks pushed people to excellence. (I know, says I, says I. But I will elaborate.)
Hanks' monologue as America's Dad was OK, and probably the best bit of the night, but it was more poignant than funny.
Well, Tom Hanks isn't the box office behemoth he was in the 90's, but he's solidly HERE as our ranking American star of a certain type. He probably is guaranteed $70 million for being in Inferno(I'm not kidding; upfronts and percentages are the only reason he'd make it); Sully is "studio Oscar bait"; and even that indiefilm got some good reviews.
But the present really doesn't matter as much as Hanks' illustrious past. From Splash to Bachelor Party(his one true "hit stinker") to Big to A League of Their Own(his "character guy comeback") to Sleepless in Seattle(a giant romantic hit) to the back to back triumphs of Philadelphia/Forrest Gump(with Gump becoming HIS famous character for all time) and on to Apollo 13 and the inspirational/gruesome Saving Private Ryan and the massive but moving vanity project "Cast Away"(one man on an island in a parable on suriving life)he did it all "back there" and has just stuck around as a dependable star ever since. (But he's still good: his guys in Charlie Wilson's War and Bridge of Spies were as incisive and adult as a star performance can be.)
SoTom Hanks almost gets the RIGHT to tell America: I know this election feels like a nightmare. A horror movie. And its going to be alright. But we are still going through a change.
It was well written to make sure that the audience knows: America isn't going to be a white-sumpremacy America much longer, its gonna have all sorts of cultures and ethnicities. Women DO have equal rights. Gay is OK.
Go back and look at all the TV series of the early 1960's sometimes. Look at how the blacks and the Asians had houseboy roles and were rather derided, if they were on the screen at all. "Women's Sections" of the newspaper wrote of "Mrs. Lawrence Jones" and "Mrs. Robert Smith" without using their female first names at all. That's over.
Look at how strange the entire career of Alfred Hitchocck is going to start looking. All white casts except for the black cook in Lifeboat(a good character), Roscoe Lew Browne's DuBois in Topaz(a great character) and a black FBI agent with about two lines while the two other white guys do the scene, in Family Plot. As for the rest? Rear Window: all white. Psycho: All white. The Birds: all white. North by Northwest: all white except for some train porters. That's over.
Good ol' heart-warming "dad" Tom Hanks was just laying out what's been in the works oh, since about 1968. We're not done yet, but we're a very new nation than what we were. Tom's the right guy to set us straight.
I can't wait to see what happens next.
Of some interest to me is that now that Hillary's got it "in the bag," I have read of the preparations being made to use that WikiLeaks stuff especially her love affair with Wall Street to beat her over the head for the next two years, as least. More from her left than her right. Its OK, she can take it. But I think having an ongoing sense of "the banality of corruption" will only make life for the rest of us that much more enjoyable. We can ignore it.
Update: It was the highest-rating SNL ep. for 8 Years!
Probably the combo package of "final Trump/Clinton debate," Hanks as the host, and Lady Gaga. And thus more proof that SNL is STILL a cultural force in American entertainment (and more than ever, American politics.)
And, reading around now, most people seem to have really liked the ep. - AVCub gave it an A- (best of season grade), all of which of which leaves me feeling like either I or everyone else is on crazy pills
One or the other of us, but againeveryone has their taste.
I'll note:
The bit this week where an elevator stopped on every floor and wacky people were seen was a duplicate for last week's episode where a limo went thorugh a drive through and wacky people kept appearing in each window of the car. Same writer, no doubt? GET RID OF THIS FORMAT. Didn't work for me.
Great:
Tom Hanks as Sully. A few times in the history of SNL, an actor has mocked their famous role role WHILE it is famous. Marisa Tomei did her spectacular Mona Lisa Vito from My Cousin Vinny on one. But here's Hanks getting to work with Alec Baldwin(using his crack comedy timing and Porn Star Voice to do something other than Trump) with a GREAT gag: nobody cares about Sully as a hero anymore, but Sully cares about Sully as a hero. Not only did I laugh, I felt honored that Tom Hanks would do this.
The "pet bloopers." Laughing very, very hard at the shot of the one cat "watching a horrible murder" and the other cat "being prepared for the morgue." With Tom Hanks doing -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 02:53 AM)
One or the other of us, but againeveryone has their taste.
True.
Great:
Tom Hanks as Sully. A few times in the history of SNL, an actor has mocked their famous role role WHILE it is famous. Marisa Tomei did her spectacular Mona Lisa Vito from My Cousin Vinny on one. But here's Hanks getting to work with Alec Baldwin(using his crack comedy timing and Porn Star Voice to do something other than Trump) with a GREAT gag: nobody cares about Sully as a hero anymore, but Sully cares about Sully as a hero. Not only did I laugh, I felt honored that Tom Hanks would do this.
I thought it was just standard for hosts to parody one or more of their most famous roles? Anyhow, the Sully skit struck me as just the one joke that Sully can't handle being second banana over and over again.
The "pet bloopers." Laughing very, very hard at the shot of the one cat "watching a horrible murder" and the other cat "being prepared for the morgue."
I guess so but it just compiling a few youtube cat clips struck me as not much of of a sketch.
Hanks as a Trump supporter on "Black Jeopardy." Some headlines were "See Tom Hanks mock Trump supporter on SNL," but I saw the sketch rather differently: to me it said that blacks and Trump supporters are rather in the same boat: disenfranchised by the hey, can we come up with another word than "elite"? who really don't give a damn about either camp.
I agree that the politics of teh sketch were what you say, but I guess I just didn't see anything particuarly funny in it.
"Drunk girls Halloween." Disclaimer: I had teenage girls in the room watching this with me, and THEY went nuts for it. I thought it was funny, too. The barf on the pizza struck me as a network television first in sick.
I guess I've seen a lot of versions of this basic joke over the past few years on Amy Schumer, Broad City, and in other places. So. I clocked where the sketch was going very quickly and was thereafter immune to its charms.
Leslie Jones on Update. Leslie here took up the "nude" hacking that was done of her last summer and she was Leslie Jones Deluxe. I also love how she "flirts" with tiny little white guy Colin Jost. Michael Che remains quite good I forgot HIM when talking about how the men aren't as good as the gals on the show.
A lot of people really liked this, but I just found it loud and hectoring and not-funny. Too much politics?
Lady Gaga: She's got SOMETHING going on. Hell, I stopped and listened to the act. In great shape, too.
Gaga started her her career with an album and a half of near-perfect highly-produced pop. Everything since then though has disappointed, including this latest supposedly more rootsy incarnation. What voice appeal is a very personal matter, but for me Gaga's voice (which she's increasingly foregrounded) is a problem. While it's technically good, it's also unexpressive or without feel I find. And like a lot of pop divas these days, Gaga uses the vocal melody as a kind of springboard for vocal showing-off (it's the curse of Whitney and Mariah!), which I find kind of meaningless.
I dunno, maybe I'm just in a sour mood right now! -
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 07:55 AM)
The "pet bloopers." Laughing very, very hard at the shot of the one cat "watching a horrible murder" and the other cat "being prepared for the morgue."
I guess so but it just compiling a few youtube cat clips struck me as not much of of a sketch.
In the interest of "comity," and because you are kind enough to respond to these things, I shall agree to disagree on every sketch except the above.
Because, the first time I saw it, I laughed until I had the proverbial tears in my eyes(harder and harder to achieve these days), and then I showed it to other people and it got the same result, AND I've "analyzed it" to the point where I realize it carries(for me, just for me), that incisive comedy writing that SNL used to have under some writers whose names I can't remember now, other than Jack Handy.
The gag, to me, is that while "Ron Howard"(Hanks) is trying to get his rather ominous female French guests to offer "funny" narration of THEIR cat shots, they turn THEIR cat shots into grim and macabre nightmares or lowlife tales:
One cat is "watching a serial killer commit his crime, the victim cries for mercy but the cat , she cannot bring herself to help."
One cat is "starving under the neglect of his deadbeat dad, as the father cavorts with whores across the street and the child begs for care."
A dog walking around in a supermarket on two feet (funny enough as it is) is "trying to walk away as my owner has been stabbed in the back room, and this will look bad for me, as I am on parole. Worse, I believe my owner is still breathing, even as he was split down the middle."
And one cat lying motionless on its back(sleeping in real life, no doubt), gets the narration "theez one eez being prepared for ze morgue."
The cuts to Hanks reacting to these remarks, and the accent humor seals the deal for me.
As I've noted before, I'm not sure SNL has spent its decades delivering consistent comedy greatness, but enough stuff has scored to make it worth the w while.
My only concern with this cat sketch which was borderline "one of the greats" for me is that SNL will figure that out and start doing it over and over and over. Though they may have a problem finding enough weird clips of cats and dogs.
On Lady Gaga, I defer to your critical expertise and for the rest:
"Its only a TV show." -
swanstep — 9 years ago(October 24, 2016 10:34 PM)
I guess so but it just compiling a few youtube cat clips struck me as not much of of a sketch.
In the interest of "comity," and because you are kind enough to respond to these things, I shall agree to disagree on every sketch except the above.
Because, the first time I saw it, I laughed until I had the proverbial tears in my eyes(harder and harder to achieve these days), and then I showed it to other people and it got the same result, AND I've "analyzed it" to the point where I realize it carries(for me, just for me), that incisive comedy writing that SNL used to have under some writers whose names I can't remember now, other than Jack Handy.
The gag, to me, is that while "Ron Howard"(Hanks) is trying to get his rather ominous female French guests to offer "funny" narration of THEIR cat shots, they turn THEIR cat shots into grim and macabre nightmares or lowlife tales:
Fair enough. I guess that everything you say is in there (and more). Maybe I'm just in a rotten mood right now - maybe the election and all its grim humor has ruined scripted comedy for me for a while! I watched the Simpsons Halloween ep. for the first time in ages this week.and it struck me as almost anti-funny. Maybe my sense of humor is on the fritz, or, rather, Colbert (who's finally got his CBS show on track in this election season), John Oliver, Samantha Bee and other cynicism-mongers maybe are using all all my LOLs or Lulz as the kids often type these days.
On Lady Gaga, I defer to your critical expertise
Oh, no real expertise - I just find her song-writing kind of laborious and her voice lacking in feel/expression (the meta-message of 'Look at me!' is all I end up hearing). But these are strongly personal judgments. Nobody has to agree with me! -
ecarle — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 04:07 PM)
Ha!
Could happen.
But its known that SNL usually does three live ones in a row and then runs a repeatand they broke that tradition(as they have in the past in Presidential election autumns) to do four in a row and THEN run a repeat(Margot Robbie.)
And a different update: Hanks' "Inferno" has tanked in its US debut which seems to have been expected. I've seen the trailer at theaters many times this fall and it never seems very exciting even with the concept of a villain out to kill half the world' population. I think the key is that the "Da Vinci' series has never seemed plotted like "real thrillers" are. The mix of art history and theology goes other places. And Hanks character isn't exactly Jack Reacher, if you get my drift.
I'll hold to my speculation that Hanks did this one because the payday was huge. Its no skin off his back if no one sees this. But of course, "hopes for the international market are strong." I don't think there are flops anymore, just levels of financial success.
I did read this: "Inferno" gives director Ron Howard a dangerous four-flops-in-a-row. It remains fascinating that Ron Howard could rise high enough in Hollywood to win one of those Best Director Oscars that Hitchcock never got, but it looks like Opie's running out of luck.
But Howard might spring back. His Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind"(which shares a lot with Psycho, except no horror) came three years after he produced the flop that was Van Sant's Psycho. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 02:53 PM)
or however you spell it.
The episode was immeasurably helped by the appearances, within minutes of each other on Weekend Update of "Church Lady"(Dana Carvey) and Bill Murray(with some Chicago Cubs as a glee club with great backup singers; Bill's from Chicago himself.)
One was reminded of the sweep of SNL across four decades Carvey was the long-ago 80's and Murray even further back, ALMOST the beginning, 1976-1977. (When he came aboard in Year Two for Chevy Chase, he was resented for awhile.)
And can I declare it now: when all is said and done, Bill Murray will likely stand as THE Saturday Night Live star of the era unless it goes another great 40 years.
Eddie Murphy, was, for a time, the biggest movie superstar launched from the show, but he eventually crashed and burned as a movie star. Adam Sandler has had a longer run, but rather sputtering, as a major star, with no really great works(oh, Punch Drunk Love maybe, but its little seen).
Murray was a superstar for awhile(Caddyshack/Stripes/Tootsie/Ghostbusters peak), but then Murray sidestepped into "ultra-cool old guy" character man status(of a movie he did with Bruce Willis for Wes Anderson, Murray said "Well, Bruce is a movie star. I USED to be a movie star.")
Moreover, Bill Murray less one start-up year of SNL that really doesn't feel like SNL goes back to the roots of the show. Belushi is gone. Gilda Radner is gone. Chevy Chase and Dan Ackroyd are irrelevant. Murray has gone the distance.Dana Carvey, btw, is promoting some new something or other. Cable show? Streaming show? I heard him on the radio the other day. Good for him. That poor fellow he had heart bypass surgery when he was young, and the doctor found out he operated on the WRONG artery it had to be done all over again. Yikes.
I'm pretty sure Murray put in an earlier appearance, in the Times Square street, as "Hillary Clinton"(Kate MacKinnon) and "Donald Trump"(Alec Baldwin) tried to hug people and Murray was shown wearing a "Trump that Bch" shirt.
Though actually, Baldwin and MacKinnon opted to play themselves in this segment, throwing off the "gross" characters they were playing and trying to make us happy after this rock-bottom campaign season.
I rather liked host Benedict's advice about the election: "Do what we do in Englanddrink! A lot!"
Can't say the sketches sent me except for the one in which the grandmother was dead while being dry-humped by male strippers. "Weekend at Bernie's" never gets old; nor "The Trouble With Harry" for that matter.
The "cool toilet" was funny. (Benedict sitting and facing backwards on a toilet so he could fold his arms on the bowl unit and act cool this is EXACTLY how Martin Balsam posed for his Arbogast cast photo which I've only seen once; there, I found a Psycho connection.)
SNL manages to get fairly funny toilet humor. Years ago that had "side by side his and her toilets" for man and wife to sit facing each other. Of course, the issue is: women sit for two uses, men only sit for one. So it was gross to see the man sitting there.
And even farther back: Guest Host Harvey Keitel did a bit where, at a restaurant, he goes in to sit on the toilet(waist below the shot) and finds his every need attended to by an attendant who stands right next to him and the toilet.
All that said and the toilet aspects of Psycho duly noted I'm not big on toilet humor.
That's all I got on this one.
Next week's host: the return of the long-lost Dave Chappelle. -
swanstep — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:52 PM)
I rather liked host Benedict's advice about the election: "Do what we do in Englanddrink! A lot!"
I was suprised that Cumberbatch wasn't given more of a monologuesurely, for example, he has some Brit-advice that could be both interesting and funny stemming from the shock of the Brexit-referendum. These days. almost everybody it seems gets to do a musical # for most their monologue rather than a bit of quasi-stand up. But I would have thought that mister hyper-verbal Cumberbatch is absolutely candidate for the latter.
Effectively, too, the monologue song was a goof on Cumberbatch as a kind of Barry White for Nerd-girlswhich was also much of the content of the first couple of sketches. This was SNL stepping all over itself again in my view.
Can't say the sketches sent me except for the one in which the grandmother was dead while being dry-humped by male strippers. "Weekend at Bernie's" never gets old; nor "The Trouble With Harry" for that matter.
I was highly criticial of the sketches on Tom Hanks's ep a few weeks back.but this ep. showed I was way too harsh. Truly dire stuff this week, no 'Weekend at Bernies' exception!
I do like SNL's Putin though! That guy's got a job for the next 4 years if Trump wins and maybe in any case. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 06:52 PM)
I was highly criticial of the sketches on Tom Hanks's ep a few weeks back.
There seem to be some internet mags out there that might just be PAID or something(I'm just sayin') to promote certain things each week on SNL as "good." The Hanks episode was singled out for his "David Pumpkins" character and for the game show that showed Trumpsters and Black Lives Matter folks to have more in common than you'd think.
No such article about the Cumberbatch show, though.
this ep. showed I was way too harsh. Truly dire stuff this week, no 'Weekend at Bernies' exception!
Fair enough. I didn't LOVE it, but I liked it.
I worry we won't make it through this SNL season, swanstep. These episodes are about as good as that show seems to get anymore. Though I vaguely remember a pretty good Woody Harrelson episode last year.
Interesting to me: sometimes SNL scores by bringing back former "funny cast members" and doing former "funny routines." I wonder who will come back this time?
All this said, I have been watching SNL for decades now, and I recall many much funnier sketches in the 80's and 90's, let alone the 70's, than we're getting nowadays. For different reasons, cast members like Chris Guest, Billy Crystal, David Spade, Phil Hartman, Chris Farley and (a personal favorite) Cheri Oteri just had the goods to make us laugh, in sketches well-written enough to "sell." Hosts like Chris Walken and Alec Baldwin were hilarious.
Walken, I hear, is kinda banned from the show; but I loved him on an anniversary special asking Tom Hanks, "Tell mehow do you do those crazy-make-em-ups on this show."
Chris Walken saying "Crazy make-em-ups" has to be seen.
Today, I think if you subtract the political parodies and the Update jokes from SNLits in very desperate straits practically every week in terms of sketches. Though Kate MacKinnon and some others still got the goods. Off to the movies with HER.
I shan't abandon ship though! I've come a few decades with SNL. I'll go a few more.
I do like SNL's Putin though! That guy's got a job for the next 4 years if Trump wins and maybe in any case.
Beck Bennett. He seems to have come single-handedly to SNL from those phone commercials where he talked in great seriousness to little kids. He was on my "promising but wasted" list up til now, but they seem to be bringing him up now that Tarem Killian or whatever his name was is gone.
I also think maybe he's gonna for the "good looking guy " slot on the show that was recently given to Jason Sudekis. -
ecarle — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 08:55 AM)
Interesting to me: sometimes SNL scores by bringing back former "funny cast members" and doing former "funny routines." I wonder who will come back this time?
Kristen Wiig. In a couple of weeks.
I feel like I called it this time. Methinks that whenever Lorne Michaels feels that his new sketches and players aren't cutting it, its time to bring back a veteran with his/her reliable old sketches.
Funny thing about Wiig, though. A few years ago, she was the Big Cheese on SNL and headed for movies, but now she is outshined by Kate MacKinnon..both on SNL and in a big movie together(Ghostbusters.)
That's show biz.