Oh goody, a screed!

Matt Fogel pointed me to this interesting discussion about the new oral history of SNL, Live From New York.



As you might imagine (and dread), I have a lot to say about SNL. My wife, ever the journalist, says I should start by revealing that my partner Jon and I wrote a bunch of stuff for the show back in '98 and '99, much of which was used on the air. Though Jon and I were interviewed, we were never hired. So I have some experience being simultaneously inside and outside the SNL bubble, as well as, yes, some personal irritation with what they do and how they do it over there at 30 Rock.



I haven't read the new book yet. Maybe it's great. It's certainly got a lot to live up to; Saturday Night: A Backstage History (which is listed in my list of Required Reading) is gripping, funny, and thought-provoking. I haven't felt obligated to read this new book for two reasons. First, Tom Shales has been such an SNL brownnoser--since the very first show--that I suspect his objectivity. Not about whether Charles Rocket sucked, but about the important stuff. Nobody would be allowed to write this book if he/she weren't a Friend of Lorne, and an F.O.L would be loathe to piss Lorne off by deviating from "SNL changed comedy and Lorne is a genius and too bad about Belushi and by the way isn't the current cast great?" What would they get from telling the truth except a fleeting sense of integrity, and people who value that overmuch don't make it in showbiz or politics.



Second, the power that SNL, and by extension, Lorne, currently have would really discourage anybody not already orbiting Planet SNL from saying what they really thought. Certainly there is gossip in the book--"So-and-so slept with so-and-so," or that old chestnut "Chevy was an asshole," but that's meaningless bullshit, and you can already get that from Hill and Weingrad's book. I heard somewhere that Lorne and his minions apparently hated it, which suggests that whatever Hill and Weingrad's flaws, fawning wasn't one of them.



I'm still waiting for the book--or even the magazine article--that says in big 72-point type, "SNL Sucks." Not in a "this cast is bad" or "X new comedy phenomenon is better" way, but pointing out that, by the measure that SNL constantly claims for itself, it's a dismal failure. It's not important, it's not influential, it changes nothing. Who comes away from SNL saying, "Gee--I never thought of it that way"? SNL's not even very "smart", except in the debased way that adjective gets tossed around in the entertainment business. It's about pop culture and repeating characters, and aimed at teenagers. Nothing wrong with that, Rob Schneider has to eat, too. But SNL claims to be IMPORTANT; it claims to have changed things, when all it really changed was TV and only incrementally at that. (Censors are more lax, now.) SNL may be the only place for topical sketch comedy on American TV, but being the prettiest girl in your homeroom doesn't make you Miss America.



Whatever satirical nuts SNL once had, it lost after the first cast left in 1980. Lorne's romantic method of doing the show--live, in a mad rush--encourages poorly written sketches, sloppy performances, and the kind of unrelenting pressure that encourages sick behavior and, in some cases, kills people. So it's not satirical (nobody there wants to change anything--and why would they? They're young, famous, and rapidly getting rich) not even very good comedy--I guarantee you'll laugh more duirng an hour and a half of Second City or Improv Olympic or UCB, than while watching SNL--and surely the cast knows this. They're a talented, funny lot. But working for SNL has the same effect as playing for the Cubs. There are a thousand reasons why this might be so, but that's the real story here, not "Jane Curtain and John Belushi really hated each other."



Unevenness aside, SNL would still be worthy of attention if it were truly taking risks. But SNL is risk-free; the method is risky, but the material is utterly tame.(On purpose--I've seen what they cut in dress rehearsal--not that any of it is particularly biting.) Don't underestimate the power of the herd instinct in comedy, which works simultaneously down from the top and up from the bottom--networks are risk-averse, and audiences prefer the familiar. What happened in the early days of SNL, as liberating as it might have felt then, apparently didn't change anything. Is Operaman any smarter/more influential/more important than Arte Johnson's pidgin German on Laugh In? Of course not, and it's no crime simply to be funny. The equine corpse I'm walloping is that the reality of SNL simply doesn't justify what people always say about it, and if you don't know the history of American comedy, you might be inclined to believe the hype. SNL's an uneven, occasionally funny, topical sketch comedy program. That's fine, as far as it goes. Which is not far enough for hagiography.



This critique isn't new--ask anybody in comedy, before they get the gig working there. SNL is just as shallow, formulaic and stifling as whatever it once considered itself to be replacing, and probably worse because it refuses to go away. Carol Burnett (fine show, for what it was) aired for what? ten years? SNL is 27 and counting. SNL is Carol Burnett that thinks it's something more, and whatever flaws old show biz might've had, at least it wasn't so insufferably smug. Carol Burnett wasn't changing the world, making you think, or speaking truth to power. And neither is SNL. SNL's not the heir to Bruce, Pryor and Carlin--maybe it never was, maybe it couldn't've been. But its apologists always say it is, and here's why that's bad: as long as SNL can further the lie that it's a pirate ship, when it's really His Majesty's Pleasure Barge, we'll never have anything truly sharp, truly satirical, truly energetic in its place. I recognize that the first iteration of SNL did inspire and delight people, and that's what makes the show since, so frustrating. As long as the lie is believed, the best comedic talent will continue to be lured by the swindle that you can have it all--money, fame, mainstream success, AND still be a rebel. You can't be a rebel without paying the price--that's what makes somebody a rebel. You know where to find rebels in a business as merciless as show biz? The unemployment line--or maybe, if they're as lucky and skilled as the first cast was, on some weird-ass late-night slot where a desperate network has nothing to lose--but certainly not on SNL circa 2002.



Sorry, folks--got a little carried away there. I'll report in when I've read the book.