4 ms·
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?”
by 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 agoBut 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 agoOkay, 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 agoI'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.