3 ms·

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 piec

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.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
khazhoux 3y ago
> 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.
jeffgreco 3y ago
The argument seems more “is this the guy we want running the plurality of American comedy” not “what do we want Lorne Michaels to do?”
- tqi 3y ago
  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"
  - totallymike 3y ago
    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”
    - peteforde 3y ago
      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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

khazhoux 3y ago

> 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.

jeffgreco 3y ago

The argument seems more “is this the guy we want running the plurality of American comedy” not “what do we want Lorne Michaels to do?”

tqi 3y ago
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"
- totallymike 3y ago
  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”
  - peteforde 3y ago
    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.