Responses to Dr. Brittney Edmonds contribution

From Ethan: Thank you for your piece. I was particularly struck by your point about the In Memoriam sketch being a "wink" to current race manners. The fact that the sketch identifies problematic performances in such a slap-dash way reminds me of the approach that the current administration is using to attack DEI initiatives. For example, pulling down mentions of the Enola Gay because someone did a search for the word "gay" in the Department of Defense archives. I wonder if this sketch was similarly made, premise first and then database filter later, without any consideration for the meaning of the sketches. Both examples identify a concerning trend of automation being used to navigate the politics of representation.

From Peter: Brittney, your post points to the deep political ambivalence of Saturday Night Live, which has both eviscerated politicians like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin while also providing a legitimating platform for Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The segment you discuss almost suggests the audience is to blame (or at least equally culpable) for SNL’s past missteps, offering an insincere and “that’s just how people thought then” apology rather than acknowledging its opportunism even pandering. This becomes particularly clear in how it has used ethnic stereotypes and talent of color, particularly Black comedians. But I especially appreciate your centering of audiences and reception in this conversation. The meanings that are made in decoding SNL are often set aside by scholars and critic alike, but we have to foreground the different ways SNL has and continues to resonate.

From Meredith: I was similarly struck by the way that the ‘In Memoriam’ compilation and the framing work of Hanks’s introduction diffused culpability for the array of problematic sketches, performances, and guest appearances over the years. While the compilation might gesture to these choices as missteps, its ultimate function to “explain away” those same decisions points to ways that S.N.L. both reflects but also maintains particular cultural currents. I appreciate your attention to the thematic organization of the compilation, which would seem to purport an understanding how and why these moments in the show’s history are problematic, but as you point out, concluding with Pryor’s performance in “Word Association” suggests a failure to parse moments that push the boundaries of politeness and consider how they might actually pack a political punch. All of this seems to suggest a need for more attentive and nuanced readings of current and historical ‘offensive’ material, to consider who such material offends, how and why.

Responses to Dr. Meredith Bak contribution:

From Ethan: I had not realized that Meryl had never been on the show. I was surprised to learn that, and I thought your point about the credibility it gives SNL was important. I was also struck by the behind-the-scenes nature of her appearance. I couldn't help thinking about the fact that she is dating Martin Short now and how his oversized role in the 50^th and his standing in the SNL community probably played a part in her appearance on the show. Considered from this perspective, her appearance feels like an Easter Egg for those that are interested in comedy culture and celebrity gossip. A gesture of support and love for a budding relationship or maybe I'm being too much of a romantic.

From Peter: Meredith, I was delighted by Meryl Streep’s cameo in the special, and I appreciate the tensions you point to in your comments. I was surprised to see she had never done it, considering how SNL has become a time capsule of popular culture over the past 50 years and Streep is so often celebrated as the finest actress of her generation (which, of course, is Lorne Michaels’ generation). I was fascinated by her performance: at times, it was tight, poised, and polished, as if she were delivering a stage monologue. But then there were moments where she went up on her lines and broke character, showing she did not take herself too seriously. It was a fascinating convergence of Streep’s star-image and the possibilities unleashed by Saturday Night Live’s commitment to liveness and spontaneity.

From Brittney: It was a treat to see Meryl Streep star in the recurring sketch “Close Encounter,” a vehicle that generally showcases Kate McKinnon’s remarkable ability to commit to the bit. Meryl Streep stuns and shines in a packed scene (Woody Harrelson, Pedro Pascal, Jon Hamm, and Aidy Bryant also feature). That she manages to do so for reasons that depart from her usual “persona as a serious and refined actor” suggests, to me, a certain loosening up. She embraces vulgarity and crass behavior, embodies the posture of someone she’s probably never met, and noticeably breaks character multiple times. It’s this latter aspect of her performance that caught my attention and on first watch, I admit I found it downright distracting! But after reading your post, Meredith, about what Streep lends to SNL, I began to think about what SNL might lend to Streep. While certainly not much in the category of star or industry power, SNL’s 50^th did enable Streep, often described as the best actor of her generation, to offer herself to audiences in a new way. For all the sketch’s imperfections (other actors flub lines and break character too) and missed opportunities, Streep’s sheer delight, her conspicuous enjoyment in being a part of the scene, is what stays with me.

Responses to Dr. Peter C. Kunze contribution:

From Ethan: Thank you for your piece. I think your point is particularly salient given that much of the celebration of SNL 50 was a celebration of Lorne's tenure and the recognition that he would not likely not be in charge of the show at the next anniversary. I thought your point about his silent omnipresence was particularly interesting, given that the most we hear from Lorne is through the cast members (both current and past) impersonations of Lorne.  I did not realize that he was almost the original host of weekend update when the show began. It is interesting to consider how this mythology would have changed if he were part of the cast in that way. He is clearly comfortable having the cast speak for him, even if they all depict him as variations of Dr Evil or paint him as a dictator. 

From Brittney: Thank you for this thoughtful post. As you note, SNL’s 50^th has been marked by so much commentary, meta-commentary, commemorations, programming, podcasts, documentaries, streaming content, and more; across all that media, Lorne looms.  I recently participated in a podcast, for example, where one guest referred to Lorne Michaels as a dictator. While I don’t agree with that characterization, this sketch was one of my favorites from the special. Armisen and Bayer are spot-on in their portrayals of wild-eyed “hosers,” simultaneously shocked and awed at the formidable character and exaggerated self-importance of Lorne Michaels. I love the kind of humorous looking-over-the-shoulder, cautious criticism the sketch foregrounds. I found your attention to how these celebrations contribute to the “mythos” of the man illuminating. It’s a reminder to temper any conclusions we might come to about him with clear eyes and heavy doses of research. 

From Meredith: Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the strategic ways that Lorne Michaels’s looming presence has structured S.N.L.’s ethos. The careful ways in which cast members allude to his economic and creative influences—the information shared and withheld—offer great opportunities for viewers to imagine and speculate about the individual at the show’s helm. The identification of an individual in this capacity, I think, is especially important, given the ensemble nature of the show. For my own part, I’ll admit that all I thought I knew about Lorne came from the Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) character on 30 Rock, which was loosely and/or partially based on Michaels. Where information about Lorne is carefully curated and controlled, the humor of Donaghy’s character is in his unabashed laying it all out: his conservatism, his racial and sexual politics, his focus on the bottom line. It’s fun to compare these two it and will be interesting to see how the presentation of Lorne’s persona continues to shape the show’s direction and reception, especially in the wake of rumors of his retirement.  

Responses to Dr. Ethan Tussey contribution:

From Peter: Ethan, I appreciate your attention here to the production culture of Saturday Night Live, which I feel must be one of the most oft-valorized in the US media industries. The 50th anniversary content notwithstanding, James Andrew Miller and Tom Shales' oral history Live from New York (2002, rev. 2014), James Franco's documentary Saturday Night (2010), and Dana Carvey and David Spade's podcast Fly on the Wall (2022-) all contribute to and further this legend. Hearing about how grueling it can be–the long hours, sleepless nights, petty backbiting and competition, last-minute cuts–and then hearing how meaningful it was to so many writers and performers who have worked there prompts a bit of whiplash for me. Do they all feel it was the greatest time of their lives and, as Bobby Moynihan says Seth Meyers told him upon arrival, that it will be the only thing they talk about for the rest of their lives? Or do they just choose talking heads carefully to avoid those who have been more honest, even critical, about their time in Studio 8H? As someone who does media industry studies and supervises the internship program at my school, I find it a fascinating case study for teaching students to think critically about precarious labor, professional identity, and workplace culture.

From Brittney: Your comments about SNL’s workflow have me thinking about the show in an entirely new way. I did not make the connection between the “Anxiety” digital short and the longstanding working conditions that produce the show. It’s incredible that they largely haven’t changed in 50 years. Perhaps most surprising to me is their uneven results. Even a casual watcher of SNL can observe that from week to week—from sketch to sketch even—the creativity, verve, relevance, and aliveness of the content varies. While I don’t want to cast aspersions on the show, which I know takes great effort and a great many people to produce, I do want to join you in thinking about the continued lore that surrounds the show’s production and the rinsing clean of storied week-long preparation. 

From Meredith: It’s fascinating to think about the intense working conditions and workflow at S.N.L. remaining consistent for the majority of past half century! I was struck by the digital short’s conspicuously 80s styling (the fashion, those fog-shrouded Corinthian columns, neon shapes, 80s tech) and wondered whether these historical references might gesture specifically to the bombastic economic conditions of the 80s, as well as to a party culture characterized by stimulants and hallucinogenic drugs. As you point out, the short might suggest a correlation between the show’s stressful working conditions and cast members’ substance abuse issues. The vague staging of the short as an 80s throwback helps to reaffirm the idea that the intensity of the show’s production culture is integral to its creative output. The other detail that caught my attention was the short’s focus on chronic IBS in addition to anxiety. The “if these pipes could talk” language also alluded to the close proximity of cast members and—in a strange way—a kind of intimacy of their extreme working conditions, as many colleagues forced to share close quarters can attest. Bonding over work-induced stress, or harsh working conditions perceived to be essential to the job is another way that the S.N.L. casts across generations can identify as “family.”