Who’s Afraid of Lorne Michaels?
longreads.com
longreads.com
I feel like a lot of industry people are successful because of connections or simply through volume. But Lorne’s bibliography really makes it hard to think the same.
P.S. Pete Davidson has quite a story to tell and I enjoy him at times, but I still don’t understand what he was doing on SNL. It was like they just pulled “that guy” from the friend group who said, “pffft I could do that.” Improv is one of those things that really looks easy but there’s ridiculous depth and talent to being consistently good at it.
SNL isn't improvised. Also I've never heard anyone claim Pete Davidson has improv ability.
The writers change up the script until the last second, anyway, so the players are usually just as surprised at their lines as anyone.
As a recent example, "Lisa from Temecula", there was much discussion whether Ego's retort "oh, cuz we Black?!" was improv, and also, as a sketch that was nearly cut from the lineup, they decided to run it with a hilarious shaking table, which was the source of Pascal's surprise and laughter, and infectious to the rest of the cast.
This article [2] says, “Oh, ’cause we Black?” was added ahead of the run-through, but camera direction changed and not everyone was informed who the camera would be showing as it was delivered.
[1] https://www.slashfilm.com/1225418/why-lorne-michaels-doesnt-...
[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/02/snl-lisa-from-t...
Improv players are in a good position because being able to create comedy in the moment (improv) is a good proxy for being able to create comedy over a week (SNL). Writing is so important to SNL that players must either write themselves or partner with a writer to get airtime.
Some of the best moments were improvised, for sure, but they're not planning on it (obviously) and they're not depending on it. The sibling comment said enough about that.
> The writers change up the script until the last second, anyway, so the players are usually just as surprised at their lines as anyone.
Yeah, it's written. They're reading the lines. Not improvised. Obviously they're bringing creativity to it in their acting, but they've heard it in pitch meeting, they've contributed to writing it, they've heard it at table read, they've heard it at dress rehearsal, maybe a line on the cue card has changed.
There are moments of improvisation, but SNL is emphatically not improv.
At first I couldn't figure out why he was cast. But once he started doing his material on Weekend Update about his own life, it was clear that he brought something new and different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Night_with_Conan_O%27Brie...
The "3CP1" (CCCP) spoof episode with Cold War era Moscow hijacking the Melonville satellite uplink and the "Queen Haters" punk rock sketch from Mel's Rock Pile, with its prophetic "I feel sorry for you Lady Di, having a mother-in-law like that" being two of my personal favorites.
And, if I may, a tip of the hat to Howard Cosell for the "original" Saturday Night Live whose name NBC began using only after Howard was cancelled.
Explains what I picked up
Basically, it felt like the author was trying to weave a narrative that Lorne Michaels is as toxic as, say, Scott Rubin ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/everyone... ), but his evidence just came off as way, way weaker, and so in the end it felt like a hit piece to me.
My guess is a better analogy is someone like Anna Wintour: someone notorious for being demanding and difficult to work with, but also someone who engenders loyalty of people that work with her - more of a "very tough but ultimately fair" sort of vibe.
https://sethsimons.substack.com/p/the-comedy-club-owner-with...
I mean, look at the title of the article you posted: "The Comedy Club Owner With a Background Questioning Vaccine Safety- Come with me down a disturbing rabbit hole."
Why would I give a fuck that a comedy club owner is questioning vaccine safety? Last I checked comedy club owners aren't setting medical policy, and it's not like they have the broad reach to influence social policy. People are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want, even if it's dumb. The "Come with me down a disturbing rabbit hole" subtitle sounds like something from a junior BuzzFeed intern.
interestingly enough, Seth Simons was also the hack that got Shane Gillis fired from SNL[0].
just let funny people be funny.
[0]https://brobible.com/culture/article/norm-macdonald-ballisti...
It was abhorrent when Seth Simons held Shane Gillis at gunpoint and made him say slurs on a podcast. It is journalistic malpractice to allow somebody that would do such a thing to keep writing articles.
Are they? I highly doubt it. I disagreed with a ton of stuff in this article, but I think the points it made about the comedy business are pretty spot on: hardly anyone can make an actual living in comedy, and getting your big break on SNL is still one of surest ways to be able to make a living (and then some) in comedy.
It's not the only way (and the article concedes as much), but the legions of people posting comedy web series or doing stand-up in local clubs definitely have day jobs, and tons (most?) of these people still dream about getting on SNL someday.
That's something only a person in the business would say. For the audience, funniness is the only thing that matters.
Yet obviously some people find it funny, or it wouldn't have been around for nearly 50 years.
What leaves me frustrated by pieces like this really amounts to: in practical and literal terms, what do you want Lorne Michaels to do? Because it kind of sounds like you want him to apologize for existing while slowly lowering himself into a vat of acid, live on television.
To be clear, I have always sort of assumed that Lorne Michaels is a crazy asshole who I would not enjoy spending time with. However, my strong suspicion that he's also a savant at picking talent has been repeatedly reinforced by listening to Dana Carvey and David Spade talk to former castmates on their Fly on the Wall podcast. (which is great listening, btw)
There are always going to people who are pissed off that something they don't like appears to be working better than anything else has, before or since. This essay is that. I would bet real money that the author would accept a cast role if it was offered to them; a sort of cynical "hate the game, not the player" shrug.
As for Seth and Tina not speaking out about Sanz: I have a hard time imagining either of them holding back if something was upsetting them. To me, this suggests that perhaps they know (or believe) something that the author of the essay doesn't.
But from Fly On The Wall (yes, a great podcast), you also learn that Lorne is not actually an asshole. He's intimidating, cold, unapproachable, and sometimes snarky, but I don't think a single story on that podcast casts him as actually mean. In fact, a lot of them say how Lorne picked them up when they were down, with just a few on-point words. Like, when Dana Carvey was worried he wouldn't be able to get back into the game after a long slump, Lorne simply said to him: "Dana... everybody knows you." And that gave him the confidence boost he needed.
Remember that after SNL received criticism for not hiring Black or gay actors, they started to do so more. To me, this article feels like it has a similar intent — “hey Lorne, how can we improve our practices while also helping to improve the outcome”
Perhaps another way of putting my feelings into words is that the essay feels far too much like shaming to still qualify as a "can't we do better?"
It's written in a voice that strongly implies that Lorne actively resists progressive notions, and attempts to get readers to sort themselves into "part of the problem" and "part of the solution" groups. I find this reductive at best.
I'm fatigued of people telling me that I should be a lot more upset.
We might have to agree to disagree that the author isn't judging the audience for their complicity in finding SNL funny. The only reason to publish this essay is to make people question whether it's still okay to enjoy the show, given how evil it all is.
Then I notice the author. Crazy lol.
* Lorne is racist because there's not more minorities
* Lorne is sexist because some of the cast have been accused of harassment
* Lorne should not just hire comedians he himself thinks are funny
* Lorne is bad because too many people owe their careers to him