From: jsnell@ocf.berkeley.edu (Jason Snell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: SNL BAD?????
Date: 5 Oct 1992 01:59:19 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu
Summary: Yep, Bad

In article <92278.153859MJL122@psuvm.psu.edu> Michael J. Ludwig <MJL122@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I thought the 10/3/92 SNL was better than most.  

I thought it was better than last week's, but still awful.

>Don't have the stomach for
>political satire?  

Actually, I love it. This was pathetic satire.

>The humor assumed a certain level of awareness of how
>politics is practiced in the U.S. 

At least they tried to be satirical, which was better than last week.
But this wasn't humor that required an awareness of U.S. politics --
this was stupid, lowbrow, skip the front page of the newspaper and
watch 20 minutes of TV a day satire. It was botched and bumbled. Almost
every chance they had for a good laugh AND a good point was blown.

If you didn't like SNL last night, don't
>go see _Bob Roberts_, you won't get it.

You're saying SNL last night was highbrow? HA! That's a laugh.

>The "Founding Fathers" skit was quite clever.

Nice premise, I guess, though it's a Back to the Future joke (how long
has it been since that film?) -- I like the idea that not even the
founding fathers could survive the media feeding frenzies of today. But
this could've been really funny. Saying "the media suck" isn't biting
satire. There could've been a whole lot more here.

>Thecontinual riding of Perot was both funny and true -- gimme
>a break, "My volunteers asked me to run."???  Believe that, and I'll tell
>you another one.

Though I think Perot's a sham, he was hardly savaged here. It was like
snapping him on the butt with a wet towel. They could've -- and should've
-- been BRUTAL to the guy. Instead, they had a few lame jokes and went
away. Too bad. If the evil Mr. Mike was still around, things might have
been rougher (though incredibly disgusting, I'll grant you)--

>Whetheror not one agrees with Sinead's politics, I applaud
>her for her stand.  Organized religion has been the cause of more death and
>destruction than I care to contemplate (The Crusades????).

I don't like organized religion myself, but Sinead was uninteresting
and embarrasing. Ripping up a picture of the pope is about as heavy
handed as you can get -- wasn't this supposed to be a satire show?
Satire is clever. Sinead couldn't be clever if her life depended on it.

>This show was
>more true to Akroyd and Chase's tradition of poking fun at the political
>scene.  

The premises were more politically oriented than in a while, granted. 
But if Aykroyd and Chase were watching last night, they were probably
shaking their heads. This was FAILED satire. Unfunny, uninteresting.
Yuck.

>Well, as they say, everyone has an opinion.  One can always change
>the channel.

Yes, but one can't always find 90 minutes of sketch comedy on an
American commercial network when one changes the channel. Maybe it's
time for me to watch "Kids in the Hall" on Fridays -- it may not be
political satire, but at least it's funny.

-jason

-- 
  Jason Snell / jsnell@ocf.berkeley.edu / Cal Graduate School of Journalism
 InterText: A Net Fiction Magazine - ASCII or PostScript - Mail me for info!
            "I thought for a second that my monkey had rabies --
   It turned out he had just gotten into the Cool Whip." -- Dave Letterman