I like watching SNL. But I almost never like it. The writing is often terrible. So much so that even a game host can't save the episode. But still I watch because every once in a while buried in an awful show, there is something really funny. Like, the 'Crystals' bit, coming in at the very end Jamie Foxx's most recent hosting gig. But for the most part, the watching leaves me with a resounding 'meh' at best and, at worst, actual discomfort on behalf of the players.
Last night's Justin Timberlake episode was no question the best of the season. But why? Timberlake is not a good actor (see Social Network, Bad Teacher, etc.). But he is a good musician and he seems to do well in the short, silly sketch format. But what does he bring that the other hosts do not?
One thing he brings is familiarity. They worked to highlight the fact that this was his fifth time helming the show. He has established characters - more, in fact, than many of the cast members. He brought back some beloved former cast members who between them shouldered much of the air time. While the episode was enjoyable, looking back at it now, there was nothing new that was done -- it was the same old stuff with the same old people. The reason it works so much better, it seems, is that Timberlake is not so much a host as a cast member who only joins in once or twice a year. It doesn't seem like the writers are stretching too much to write to Timberlake's strengths - for his strengths seem to be pretty much on par with those of the permanent cast. He is comfortable on stage, comfortable with the cast, and able to improvise and not be thrown when there are slight variations from the script. In fact, Timberlake's turn last night brought to mind Will Ferrell at the top of his game in the early 2000's - the go-to cast member for central roles in new sketches and for reprising popular previous sketches (Timberlake's duo with Andy Samberg is in some ways an update of the Ferrell sketch with Rachel Dratch: hyper-sexed middle-aged professors, creeping out a different host each time they appeared.)
So, the reason why Timberlake's episode worked so well, is that, in some ways, there was no host -- just an extra, skilled, and well-versed cast member. But, of course, part of SNL's appeal is the perverse excitement of seeing a famous person potentially crash and burn in a very public way. And Lorne Michaels certainly trades on this perversity - booking, for instance, Linsday Lohan in the midst of one of her many scandals. (She was, predictably, absolutely terrible.)
This seems to be SNL's perennial dilemma: either they attract viewers with big names but for whom the writers have trouble writing and who, very often, cannot deliver, or they put on a good show with people who are comfortable in the milieu. Timberlake is a rare draw where both the star appeal and the skills coincide. But if the show was interested in consistently good comedy, they might think about changing their format - featuring a celebrity in one or two sketches where they can really shine and performing solid group sketches with the cast for the rest of the episode. But as the years go by and the embarrassing and horrifically bad episodes far outweigh the good or even decent, I wonder about the vision Michaels has of the show. Like so many aspects of popular culture, it seems that the perverse is weighted much more heavily than the skilled, the good, and, what's saddest of all in this context, the funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment