Otto von Bismarck, the father of the welfare state, is often credited — apparently erroneously — as saying that “Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made.” Often, that’s also the case with books about show business. Very often, the finished product is inversely proportional to what bastards the artists who produced it were.
For as Woody Allen — of all people — once told his biographer about five minutes before he became synonymous with the name Soon Yi:
“Talent is absolutely luck,” he said one day while talking about his early fear of performing. “And no question that the most import thing in the world is courage. People worship talent and it’s so ridiculous. Talent is something you’re born with, like Kareem [Abdul-Jabbar] is born tall. That’s why so many talented people are shitheels.”
And there were plenty of artists who inhabited the original edition of Saturday Night Live who fit both halves of that equation, combining varying overlapping degrees of talent and schmuckiness. Which is why the book Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live by Doug Hill and Jeff Weingrad, first published in 1986 and recently made available on the Kindle (and selling for under six bucks as of the time of this article), is sometimes reminiscent of Woody’s and Otto’s warnings. In a way, Hill and Weingrad’s book works on a similar level as movies like The Godfather, Scarface, or Goodfellas. In modern-era gangster movies, as long as the cameras keep the audience within the point of viewer of the mobsters, they seem sleek and cool. It’s only when you consider the damage done to the innocent people just off-screen that you begin to appreciate the level of brutality the mob inflicts.
Knowing what we now know of the culture wars that began in the mid-sixties, there’s a sense of that in A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, though it’s sometimes only tacitly referenced, in this otherwise extremely well-researched book. It’s an excellent read — as the Associated Press noted in a blurb from the book’s original edition, “It reads like a thriller and may be the best book ever written about television” — and based on the quality of writing here and the research and interviews that went into it, that’s not exactly hyperbole.
Don’t Trust Any Boom Operator Over 30
To understand how SNL changed television, it helps to understand the era before its debut. Hill and Weingrad explore that extensively from the point of view of late sixties and early seventies underground comedy. But as far as the TV industry itself, the best source is likely Ben Shapiro’s 2001 book Primetime Propaganda, which has a lengthy section that charts the history of the growing leftward tilt of the television industry in the 1960s and early 1970s.
It’s safe to say that by the mid-1970s, there probably weren’t a whole lot of Republicans left at NBC, and certainly not in the more prominent roles at the network. We know that much of the on-air talent on its various shows, such as Johnny Carson, James Garner, and news readers such as Tom Brokaw and Bryant Gumbel, were liberals to one degree or another. The union crew members who built the sets, manned the cameras and aimed the lighting rigs were likely majority Democrat as well. But they were of the old-school middlebrow left, where a classy and polished product was still the goal. And as Hill and Weingrad demonstrate, there was a hard culture clash between the old school liberals who worked at NBC in the mid-1970s, and the young radicals who made up the production staff and on-air talent at Saturday Night Live.
Am I the only person out there who never thought the show was worth watching?
It substituted crassness and vulgarity for originality and humor. It was an amateurish bore-fest. When I complained about that, I was told that of course I wouldn’t like the show, because it was designed to be watched by people who were on drugs.
SNL is the most audacious performance since …. well, since 1389 AD. …..(that is more than 500 years, btw)
The program lacks comedy, humor, insight, meaningful social or political comment, parody, talent, musical talent or anything funny. As subtle as a pile of decomposing __ __ __ __ __ (<—- fill in the blanks)
As engaging as watching paint dry.
Years ago the Catholic Church condemned SNL and if one ever saw Mick Jagger and Keith Richards tongue each other there, then any sane person would have known the show no longer had redeeming value. Unfunny, tired, offensive, hackneyed, in other words, the show blows. I read somewhere that Lorne Michaels is a Republican. Yeah, right, like Bloomberg is a Republican.
SCTV was more to my liking.
sctv was a post-modern classic that is still watchable. arrested development is a pale descendent.
I’m surprised you can go all the way through this analysis of Saturday Night Live, without once mentioning Nielsen ratings–and the changes to those ratings that made a show like SNL possible.
Prior to 1970, a TV show was rated by Nielsen according to total number of households and viewers watching the show, regardless of age or background of those viewers. Since many elderly people tended to watch a lot of TV, those Nielsen ratings skewed older.
And that’s why shows that had appeal to older viewers, like Lawrence Welk and the various rural-oriented shows on CBS (Beverly Hillbillies, Mayberry RFD, etc.) were considered hits.
In 1970, Nielsen started employing demographic ratings for the first time. Now they would also rate shows by how popular they were with the 18-49 year old audience, because sponsors knew that group bought a lot of their products.
Instantly that meant that the networks had to start offering shows that skewed younger. Gone were Lawrence Welk and all of CBS’s rural-oriented shows. In were Saturday Night Live, All in the Family, and a lot of other shows of their ilk that all tried to push the envelope with younger, rebellious viewers, many of them from Woodstock and anti-Vietnam War protests who flouted convention and tradition.
Funny thing was, I used to watch Lawrence Welk and the CBS rural shows, and was disappointed to see them go. And no, I was NOT over 49 years of age back in 1970.
The cancellation of the rural programs is a recognized phenomena, called the “rural purge“.
Since the 1980-81 season is pretty much written out of the history of the show, it’s hard to remember that with doctrinaire New York ueber-liberal Jean Douminian in charge, SNL was wildly anti-Reagan in their shows prior to Election Day, but with virtually zero humor — i.e., the show was no different from the humorless anti-Republican screeds the current version of SNL churns out in their effort to save Obama. It was one of the unspoken reasons why the show tanked as fast as it did in the fall of ’80, because just like some of today’s Hollywood/New York efforts, the show ticked off half their potential viewing audience by offering skits only a maniacally hard-core Democrat could enjoy.
In the same vein, Chevy Chase famously in the wake of the 1976 elections gave credit to Chevy Chase for electing Jimmy Carter, based on Chase’s impersonation of Gerald Ford as a bumbling idiot. Which, if you carry out that assumption past ’76, means that the extremely liberal Chase can be held responsible by others on the left for Ronald Reagan’s election, since had Ford defeated Carter Reagan would never have been president.
Tina Fey hasn’t yet claimed credit for Barack Obama’s election thanks to her Sarah Palin impersonation, so she hasn’t outwardly shown the ego of her predecessor. But given the demonization SNL is going to throw at Mitt Romney come November, it would be ironic if in the end, the Romney people can snidely claim SNL’s pro-Obama efforts in 2008 helped Mitt become president in ’12 by keeping McCain out of the White House
“The President’s watching. Let’s make him cringe and squirm.” – Rosie Shuster, early SNL writer. I guess that, as an illustration of how SNL has changed from avant garde to mere (or should I say “merde”)garde is that the writers of and performers on the cureent SNL would never (intentionally) do anything to make our current President squirm. Oh, and while I thought Al Franken was an ass (back in the first five seasons), the “limo for the lamo” anecdote provided further confirmation (his “Dirty Landry” sketch, satirizing then Dallas Cowboys coach, Tom Landry, was downright nasty).
Reluctantly, I will admit I watched SNL when it first aired and for a while, there were some really good skits. Some of my favorites were when Richard Pryor was hosting and especially the skit with he and John Belusi doing the Samari Hotel bit and the job interview with Pryor and Chevy Chase. However, after a year or so, we stopped watching the show because it became boring as heck after the first half hour.
Most people don’t recall that for a few shows, Jim Henson’s muppets were regulars and needless to say, their skits were a little raunchy and no way Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy would ever take a chance of ruining their reputation by appearing on the show. Too much class.
I’m of two minds about the show. Yes, the advente-garde has now become the garde. I still watch, even though it has become predictable and the politics a bore, just to keep a toe in popular culture (SNL and The Simpsons are the only times I watch “broadcast” tv.) And if you have to rely on crudity (oh great, now we get to see men lick each other) it tells me you aren’t funny. Carol Burnett Show was funny because they couldn’t cross certain lines.
On the other hand, there are times when boundaries do need to be smashed, if only to see why such boundaries were erected in the first place.
thank you for writing this article. I didn’t know any of this. It explains a lot.
I got tired of SNL’s sniggering childishness a very long time ago. Their humor always struck me as essentially cruel destructive. Every incarnation of the SNL cast has always included performers who would be regarded as spoiled and emotionally underdeveloped wimps if they weren’t in show business. The kind of people who pull the wings off of flies just because they can.
I’ve also never found SNL to be particularly “courageous” as some of it’s partisans claim. It’s targets are always 100% safe and well within the hashmarks of received MSM wisdom. For well over thirty years SNL has been encased in a bubble osf smug self-satisfaction that really needs to be popped.
Sounds like a pimple to me
I was a h.s. senior during SNL’s 1st season. It quickly became thee thing to do @ 10:30 Sat. night — find parents willing to host a bunch of teenagers ’til midnight. Given my age, I watched uncritically the orig. cast their 5 seasons. The 1st show after they all left? Horrid. Didn’t watch again for yrs., and then only sporadically to dip my toe in “young adult” culture. When husband & I were dating 10 yrs. ago, we like to do early casual supper & a movie, returning to his place for a nightcap. SNL was usually on. We started watching a couple times, and were so disgusted we gave up. Then again, we’ve pretty much stopped going to movies these days too. They are also awful. Luckily we can still go out to dinner! (just not in NYC, with all their busybodies telling private restaurants what they can/can’t serve)
For some reason Al Franken hated Garrett Morris. I sat in on a studio interview of Morris a few years ago and Morris cited a couple of instances of Franken basically torturing the none-too-bright Morris. (Morris was jacked on reefer) Of course that part of the interview was never aired.
For some reason, Al Franken hates everyone. He’s a bitter nasty little man.
Does anyone doubt that Franken is a racist just like all his far left pals? A black man getting star billing while poor widdle Al was relegated to the writer’s pool must have burned in his gut like fire. Don’t over think things folks.
“How Al Franken Killed the Original SNL”
Could not have happened to a “nicer” guy. Franken is a no-talent toad, which is why he probably ended up winning in Minnesota only with A LOT of help from Acorn.
Although I haven’t watched SNL in a couple of decades, I always considered the early years with the Not Ready For Prime Time Players to be classic comedy. Then not too long ago I watched some “highlights” from those years. Either the show wasn’t particularly funny to begin with or the “classics” have aged very badly. Of course, I can’t entirely rule out that it’s I who’ve changed, but since I still find all the great old film comedies funny, I’ve decided to reject that explanation.
The only time I ever found SNL watchable was when Steve Martin hosted. It’s been the running gag for about the past 20 years, then whenever a movie is coming out, one of the “stars” will host.
I’m sorry, but “Samurai Night Fever” was genuinely funny.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4110/saturday-night-live-samurai-night-fever
Belushi was a misogynist, of course. His standing line was “Chicks aren’t funny” despite the fact that Gilda was arguably funnier than he was. We all know about O.J.
Pretty much squares with my experience as an artsy kind of guy who usually associates with artists, writers, etc. A libertarian–one of those weirdoes who believe their lives belong to themselves and not to the Collective–I am generally the one consistently pro-freedom maverick in the crowd. In my experience people in the arts (whether they are comedians and actors or the lowliest street performer) like to see themelves as “free spirits,” when really they are the most lockstep, brainwashed members of the Cult of the State.
Yeah and lately there’s a lot of de facto antisemitism going round with that crowd too, IMHO.
There is a form of unofficial censorship today that is far more powerful than any official censorship that existed back when SNL first started.
Example: Does anyone remember the 60 Minutes spoof in which Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin trade barbs? Dan played the uptight conservative and Jane was the uptight liberal. A classic line always uttered by Dan was, “Jane, you ignorant slut!”, which never failed to bring the house down. Were anyone try that line today (unless the target was a conservative, of course), he or she would find their career suddenly ended under an avalanche of abuse from our self-anointed moral and intellectual betters on the Left.
Another example: Remember Garrett Morris’s spoof of black athletes (“Baseball has been bery bery good to me.”)Today it is impossible to see that getting past the Stalinist gatekeepers known as SNL producers.
There are other examples, but I am sure you get the point. The original SNL would often deviate from purely political humor, which is why it was so popular at first. The modern SNL (and it imitators like The Daily Show) have a political litmus test and see everything in political terms. No wonder they are so unfunny!
It is risky for even left-wing comedians to say anything unkind about liberals (even in jest). For that reason I believe they turned to increasingly violent rhetoric aimed against conservatives (such as rape jokes about Sarah Palin) and vulgar language in order to gain attention and approval from the genocidal maniacs who make up their shrinking fan base. Have pity on modern liberal comedians – they have far less approved material than their predecessors, and the lines of accepted humor are always shrinking without warning. Much modern comedy resembles a police state, in which “traitors” are savagely punished, and the occasional wholesale political purge (regardless of guilt or innocence) is considered desirable.
Great article, except that it is far too simple to liken “SNL’s” humor to Letterman’s.
Letterman made it uncool to care passionately about something. He was the high school outsider getting revenge on the cool kids. (Early Letterman, not the smug liberal he’s become.) That’s not “SNL” at all.
“SNL” was anti-establishment. Letterman was disdainful of everyone. He was seen as misanthropic for a reason.
I agree that Dave has become increasingly misanthropic in recent years, but the Letterman comments were built on something the authors themselves wrote about Lorne Michaels:
So at least of the time of the book’s original publishing, Michaels himself saw Letterman as the successor to his show.
What isn’t discussed though is for a show supposedly so avant garde was its primitive, pre garde if you will, attitude towards and treatment of women. Women writers, performers and the few behind the scenes personnel all complained about the lack of opportunities for women at all levels, the portrayal of women in the sketches and the treatment of women.
Altough this seems to have improved in the past few years, indeed some of the women are the best thing about the show, the show’s juvenile smirking is a turn off. Of course, I’ve matured since the show began–the show itself hasn’t.
My wife and I had a hearty laugh when we saw the following television listing from the Onion. It described us perfectly.
***
Saturday Night Live
NBC
11:30 p.m. EST/10:30 p.m. CST
If you are 34 years old, you can stop watching SNL now. Thank you for your years of support.
Enough with the “SNL sucks and always has” comments. The show has endured for 37 years. Some of its bits were iconographic:
*Chevy Chase as a stumbling Gerald Fod
*Dan Akroyd as a faltering Jimma Carter
*John Belushi as a monosyllabic samurai
*Dana Carvey as George H.W. Bush saying, “Wouldn’t be prudent, not at this juncture…”
*Eddie Murphy in Mister Robinson’s neighborhood
*Will Ferrell calling for “more cowbell”
*Chris Farley dancing at Tiffany’s
*Chris Farley as an inspirational speaker who lived “in a van down by the river”
*Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my front porch”
I fired these off the top of my head in three minutes. I’m sure I or any other SNL watcher could list 100 crucial, satiric, humor bits these guys did. And it isn’t just of those of 10 or 20 years ago. Kristin Wiig has done a multitude of hilarious and original characters: the Target lady, the always can top you with a fresh lie lady, silent, deviant Gilly.
The show has been fair in its political targets. It’s true that its influence has diminished in the last ten years or so, but it’s a tribute to Lorne Michaels that the show has had the run it has without falling to the “Peanuts” and “Simpsons” level of neverending jokes.
It deserves some serious kudos. I offer them here.
“The show has been fair in its political targets.” No, it hasn’t. While Tina Fey’s line about “I can see Russia” from my front porch” became famous during the 2008 Presidential campaign (in fact, there were Obama supporters who swore that Sarah Palin actually said it), I don’t think that you or anyone else can come up with any line, any bit, that has lampooned any major Democrat figure in this administration – not Ditzy Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, not “Botox Nancy” Pelosi, not Joe “Gaffe-a-minute” Biden, nor the Prez himself. The SNL people – Michaels, Fey, and the rest have chosen to play court jesters for the present administration.
You can only be avant-garde so long before you become old-guard.
SNL’s greatest contribution was bringing Dennis Miller to a national audience.
NATIONAL LAMPOON, NATIONAL LAMPOON, NATIONAL LAMPOON…
If you enjoyed early SNL, thank NATIONAL LAMPOON.
If you enjoy Red Eye, Jon Stewart or David Letterman (back when he was still alive), thank NATIONAL LAMPOON.
If you enjoy John Hughes movies, thank NATIONAL LAMPOON.
I can’t even list all the media that owes it’s existence to NATIONAL LAMPOON.
Look, the culture was badly constipated in the early seventies and a lot of demons and dead wood had to be purged. Cruelty was an important part of that process and I think all of us – libs and conservatives – live in a healthier society because of NATIONAL LAMPOON.
SNL’s influence over TV was so vast that NBC developed a few hit shows that took advantage of its success one way or another, and one show on Comedy Central borrowed some ideas from its mock-newscast? Man, how did our society survive such upheaval?
The original cast of SNL was, for the most part, funny in a sophomoric, junior-high kind of way. When it was well-done, it was “silly” in the same way Steve Martin was. It was to television what the old National Lampoon magazine was to Newsweek or Time, although the magazine was more vulgar. The original cast, plus Bill Murray, had talent, but the show suffered once it became simply vulgar. SCTV, on the other hand, had the same sense of silliness but never became coarse. Plus, their imitations of celebrities were so spot on you sometimes had to do a double-take. Watch Andrea Martin doing Bernadette Peters singing on the “Farm Film Celebrity Blow-up” to see one of the best. And John Candy in the “Evil House of Stewardesses” clip shown by “Count Floyd” on the “Monster Chiller Horror Theater” promo is, all around, about the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. Joe Flaherty describing the clip at the end, after his 3-D glasses “get a little fogged up” is hilarious.
Ed, this is a fantastic piece. Well-researched and insightful commentary on popular “culture” (freeze-dried as it is–great phrase, BTW!). Of course this is the sort of thing I have come to expect from you. Thanks again!
” …the same Al Franken who’s now a Democrat senator….”
I think you mean “Democratic senator.” There is no “Democrat Party.” There are no “Democrat senators.” There are “Democratic Senators” of the “Democratic Party.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
Somehow, I doubt the author cares, and I’m fully prepared for insulting, juvenile, dismissive replies. Bring it on, children.
Al, is that you?!
Democrat – a member of the Democratic party.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democrat?db=*
He is a ‘Democrat’ senator.
Al Franken was doing his level best to kill “SNL” from Day One.
Back in 1976, how did we teenage boys know it was time to turn off “SNL” and go to bed? Easy- when Franken and Davis came on! THose guys were so lame, so unfunny, that when THEY came on, it was obvious there’d be nothing worth watching for the rest of the episode.
Remember, we were 15 year old boys who’d laugh at almost ANYTHING… but even WE knew Al Franken had no talent.
Was SNL really so much more harful and biased, as, say Laugh-in? Now THAT show was pretty blatant.