Lorne Michaels really seems to have a talent for understanding talent and seeing the bigger picture in it all. The more I read about Conan getting Late Night to replace Letterman, the more I thought, “what kind of madman would put some writer like that on such a perch? Madness!” But Conan is arguably one of the greatest.
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.
> 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...
SNL isn't improvised. Also I've never heard anyone claim Pete Davidson has improv ability.
SNL players are often drawn from those who are experienced in improv. In fact, as a live show, the players are often forced to improv due to circumstances, and you may find that some of the most famous, funniest lines/scenes were improv.
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.
I've always heard that Lorne is famously against improvisation while shooting. There have been numerous examples over the years of people getting in trouble for doing it. Here's one article [1]. There are very minor changes that don't seem to cause problems. Bill Hader talked about Fred Armisen's delivery of "What are you doing here?" in the first Californians sketch being different when shooting causing him to have trouble keeping from laughing.
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.
Ah, thanks for pointing this out! Yeah, I was unaware of how little of it there really is. It does make a lot of sense, of course. And the cast is often maligned for their poor eye contact and wooden reading of the cue cards, so it's clear to see how they're under orders to stick to the scripts. Considering how much improv background some of them have, they may begin to resent that!
My favorite example of improv that made it to air is Space, The Infinite Frontier: Dr. Kent Wahler. Here https://youtu.be/gQDqRlMeJ4U?si=rRNKw2TZyyV3xcLR&t=177 is when Will Ferrel realizes he improvised too much and Jeff Goldblum is too confused, and steers back.
SNL hires a lot of people with improv background because that's where comedy makers are. They hire just as many people from stand-up backgrounds, because that's the other place comedians are. Last year's new four were all stand-up, like Pete Davidson.
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.
His voice is very personal and very unlike the standard writing on SNL.
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.
It’s had multiple good and bad runs, usually lasting a few years each—the show’s been on a long time—so rather than this being one of those “everyone thinks X was best when they were age Y” you could both kinda be right.
I disagree that he is terrible, but I do appreciate your comment, because he was that sort of cringe comedy before I had a name for it, now that I think of it.
I think of Lorne Michaels holds a similar place in culture as did Hugh Hefner. SNL was highly influential, but has been coasting on eroding cultural relevance since the internet became more interesting than broadcast television. Comics are discovering they don't need an impresario or producer as they did in the more rarefied entertainment environment of the past.
> Comics are discovering they don't need an impresario or producer as they did in the more rarefied entertainment environment of the past.
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.
He’s an extremely prolific producer. I happened to watch The Other Two and Detroiters the other day, both produced by him. Tim Robinson from Detroiters went on to make I Think You Should Leave
My personal view is that SCTV was head and shoulders above SNL; shame that it only became a cult classic later.
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.
I read this as carefully as intended, and I did not like it or feel compelled by the many arguments it tries so hard to make.
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.
> 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)
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.
But who is the "we" in that statement? Honestly it feels more like the argument is "actually this thing (that many people like) is bad and you're a bad person for liking it"
Okay, so the article describes all these things about Michaels, and SNL as an entity, but also says (paraphrasing) “if you’re a comedian and you get the opportunity, it is absolutely in your best interest to participate,” and deliberately has nothing to say about viewers of the show.
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”
I'd be fully on board with this! However, I believe that @tqi nailed it.
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.
Thanks very much for posting this - I got a similar vibe (and I'm also getting the sense a lot of these comments here are just about the title and from folks that didn't actually read the article).
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.
If anybody is wondering why that article feels off, Cris Italia was responding to this article wherein he was called out for pretty obviously pushing vaccine-autism stuff in October of 2020.
Man, both these people come off as weirdly assholish to me.
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.
The series started with the author writing about the comedy club owner violating Covid restrictions in NYC, which is a perfectly fine subject for journalism. The article you are looking at is a response to the comedy club guy pissing about the first article and doing the same thing he does in the GP - "no, this guy isn't a journalist, but when I post on Twitter I am and I must not express any beliefs, and for Seth to pretend that I have them and have expressed them is wrong" then proceed to advocate for the thing he said it would be unethical to express a belief about. The tone isn't gentle, but it's perfectly reasonably to then lay out, "well this guy actually had expressed this belief in medical conspiracy theories" and tie that to the original article.
the home of the "Legion of Skanks", a show whose self-proclaimed core values are "rape, retardation, and racism", and a club that regularly headlines "The Amazing Racist" Ari Shaffir doesn't have progressive owners? shocking, I know.
interestingly enough, Seth Simons was also the hack that got Shane Gillis fired from SNL[0].
> Seth Simons was also the hack that got Shane Gillis fired from SNL
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.
The very first thing to do when clicking through to an article about SNL is obviously to ctrl-f G-I-L-L... 0 results. Okay, probably not going to bother, it looks pretty long.
To make it clear to those unfamiliar, Seth Simons initiated the 'cancellation' of Shane Gillis and can be seen, for that reason, as a major agitator for 'cancel culture'.
> funniness—the power to reach inside your body and give you sudden, uncontrollable pleasure—is usually the most obvious and therefore least interesting thing about it
That's something only a person in the business would say. For the audience, funniness is the only thing that matters.
It’s funny how such an unfunny show works to promote and train a steady flow of talent. I wonder what will become the next mainstream comedy breeding ground after Lorne calls it quits. Given the show’s ratings (and relevance) decline since the 90s, I imagine we’ll see SNL wrap it up within the decade. I’m not sure it will be missed.
I literally could of have posted your exact same comment in any year of the past 40 (replacing the "decline since the xxs" with some previous decade), and it would have looked like a million similar comments of that time, and would gotten lots of "yeah, SNL was way funnier back in my day" responses.
Yet obviously some people find it funny, or it wouldn't have been around for nearly 50 years.
It's not nostalgia for anything, as the show's never been to my taste. What I'm saying is the show's ratings are quite literally the worst they've ever been. Part of that is the general decline of linear tv and part is also the quality of the show itself. Were it not for its largely unchallenged time slot, it would have been off the air long ago.
If anyone is interested in some inside baseball discussions about SNL check out the fly on the wall podcast with Dana carvey and David spade it’s very enjoyable
53 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadI 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
* 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
Then I notice the author. Crazy lol.
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.