The "Saturday Night Live" Experience: A Night in the Cold

Leave a reply

This weekend, I was lucky enough to attend “Saturday Night Live.” Yes, I waited for an entire night in brutal cold weather so I could see a two hour show. Was it worth it? Despite a few poor sketches, yes it was.

The host was Alec Baldwin. The musical guest was (blech) Jonas Brothers. It was a night to remember. It wasn’t just the show that was great, but the events that surrounded it.
SNL doesn’t give out tickets to most long before the show starts. The only way to get in is to wait on a standby line all night Friday night until they hand out passes at 7 am. You then come back that night and if you’re lucky enough, you get in. I was lucky enough.
But before we get to the show, lets back it up. This was the kind of event that was worth waiting in line on a freezing winter night all night long for. The bitter cold was warmed up by many surprise guest appearances outside. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow walked by. Both stopped for a few minutes to talk. Maddow joked about her lack of makeup, while Olbermann wished us good luck. The usually angry Olbermann was surprisingly mild-mannered. Earlier in the night, the legendary Tom Brokaw stood about five feet away from me, and Brian Williams ran by as well. 
But the real best appearances were from the people who were the reason I was there. Lorne Michaels, the genius who started SNL 34 years ago, came by. Twice. The first time, he was so impressed with our shouts and cheers to him, that he sent out some chefs to bring us out hot soup. It was his way of saying thank you for waiting all night. What a nice guy. He came by again later. Even though he was in a hurry, he still stopped for a few moments to sign autographs and take a picture. At some point, I also encountered newcomer Abby Elliot (probably best known for her hilarious Angelina Jolie impression) and Bill Hader. Hader spoke with us for a few minutes. He answered questions and took photos. He was somewhat awkward yet lively and kind. Those five minutes with him certainly were not enough.
Well, onto the show itself. I did not go to the live show, but rather the dress rehearsal. In fact this might’ve been even better. I was able to see a few good sketches that were cut from the live show. Also, Michaela Watkins performance as the obnoxious blogger was much funnier in the dress rehearsal. In the dress rehearsal, she was much more serious while in the live show, she was on the verge of hysterical laughter and breaking character.
The show itself was mixed, yet overall hilarious. The cold open left me feeling a little cold, but the rest of the show went uphill from there. I am still no fan of Jonas Brothers,  but their performances in their two sketches managed to be quite funny. Their Digital Short nearly stole the show. I still hate Jonas Brothers as musicians, but it is good to see that they can take and make a joke about themselves. It shows that they are not only funny, but human too. 
Other highlights of the show included the Wii sketch, the TV land/Vincent Price parody, and a Sarah McLachlan/dog commercial skit that didn’t make it to the live show.
Maybe what was so great about going to SNL was seeing how it all works. Seeing how quickly they have to get everything together before the commercial break ends. Hating on SNL has become a popular practice nowadays. However, people don’t give the cast/crew of SNL enough credit. Doing what they do every week is probably the hardest job on Earth. Getting out of costume that quickly seems like a nearly impossible feat, but somehow they pull it off. Sometimes of course, it doesn’t turn out that well. But that’s what SNL is, it’s a hit-or-miss sketch comedy show. When a sketch is a hit, it’s classic. When a sketch is a miss, it’s painful. But just being in the audience, with Kristen Wiig and Alec Baldwin within shouting distance, it felt like every skit was a hit. And that whole two hour moment, was classic. 

Seth Meyers: Criticizing Hypocrisy Done Right

Leave a reply

For the past few days, I’ve thought about writing a post in defense of Michael Phelps and the whole “I smoked marijuana once for God’s sakes I’m just a kid scandal.” Instead I’m just going to let Seth Meyers say everything I’ve been thinking. Meyers isn’t always the best actor, but when it comes to delivering punchlines, he does it like no other on “Saturday Night Live” today. His “Really?!?” segment on Weekend Update feels a little half-empty without Amy anymore, but last night, he still managed to deliver the goods. Mainly, by dissing out everyone making a fuss about those photos of Michael Phelps smoking a bong. There wasn’t enough anger toward Elisabeth Hasselback’s tirades against Phelps, but I digress. Meyers’s observations that Kellog, who recently dropped Phelps as a spokesperson, have the characters of a bunch of elves who live in trees and think of new things to put cheese on is like stoner heaven, was genius. But, Meyers deserved a standing ovation for this line:

“If you’re at a party and you see Michael Phelps smoking a bong and you’re first thought isn’t ‘wow I get to party with Michael Phelps’ and instead you take a picture and sell it to a tabloid you should take a long look in the mirror because you’re a dick. I mean really.”
Zing. Why haven’t more people besides “SNL” decided to stand up for Phelps. And if A-Rod testing positive for steroids doesn’t create as much of an uproar as Phelps getting high, than I’m waging war on the media (mainly, Elisabeth Hasselback). Here’s the clip if you missed it:

Movie Review: Frost/Nixon

Leave a reply

Everyone knows Richard Nixon for his extreme criminal act. He forever tainted the executive branch. Even every great president that succeeded him can’t clear the fact that a man like Nixon used his power for corrupt purposes. But the one thing people need to focus on more: his smugness. The day Nixon left the White House not a tear of sadness or any remorse seemed to hit his face, just a “I’m getting out of this clean” smile.

Of course, I wasn’t around to actually see this. I could only assume these things from photos taken and videos shot. The only way you could really decode that smug demeanor is by exploring his character and by, well, making a movie. Because that is what movies do best, capture someone’s inner workings and state of mind. All I can say is that what “Frost/Nixon” aimed to do, and succeeded at admirably.
Now, I’m probably going to spend a large portion of this review praising Frank Langella’s portrayal of Nixon and how spot on it was. But before I go onto that, it’s necessary to look at the movie itself, not just the person seen on screen.
As the title suggests, “Frost/Nixon” tells the story of Brit David Frost’s now legendary interview with post-resignation Richard Nixon. Frost is portrayed as Michael Sheen. Frost was not the world’s most highly respected journalist. He was a talk show host and an entertainer. No one knew going into it that Frost would be the man who broke Nixon down. But, he proved everyone wrong, and deserves to be mentioned amongst the hall of fame of journalists just for that.
“Frost/Nixon” itself is based on a play, using pretty much all the same actors the play had. I didn’t see the play so I can’t really compare the two. The only parts of the movie that really seem theatrical are the interviews themselves. Ron Howard decided to shoot the movie more in the style of a documentary rather than total traditional narrative form. He has characters doing interviews in the way future, and reflecting on the events. Unfortunately, having those interviews leaves less for the audience to discuss about Nixon (especially his facial expressions, more about that soon), but they do seem necessary in a movie that is documenting a behind the scenes look at how journalism works. Praise Howard for going beyond just recreation and actually exploring. You can watch the actual interviews to see what Nixon was really like, but you can see the movie if you really want to explore and understand how it all happened.
While watching “Frost/Nixon,” I was reminded of the other great movie about exposing Nixon, “All the President’s Men.” It is apparent that Howard studied that movie deeply. “Frost/Nixon” makes a great use of lighting and shadows to express mood and characters. Take for example the scene where Frost has a telephone conversation with Nixon, one that will set the course of the final interview. Frost, despite being extremely stressed, sits in a nicely lighted room. Nixon on the other hand, is shrouded in shadows, only a small portion of his face is visible. Truly menacing.
What this movie is really about is the fall of Richard Nixon. Had they not gotten a convincing actor to play Nixon, the movie probably wouldn’t have worked. But, they did the right thing and got Frank Langella. Langella gets his voice as close to Nixon’s as any human possibly could. Langella manages to use that voice, as well as his facial expressions, to actually become Nixon. Not at one point did I think I was looking at Frank Langella, but rather that someone had decided to pull a creepy Frankenstein like reincarnation of Nixon. He even walks (with that slightly hunched back) like Nixon.
Mostly Langella uses these characteristics to not just become Nixon, but to dig deeper and figure out his inner workings. You can’t become Nixon, but actors can study their character and just look at their face and find a way to crawl under their skin. It felt like Langella not only got under Nixon’s skin, but walked around in it, too. He captures that very arrogant, “I’m not guilty” vibe that Nixon always gave off. Even after being pressed by hard questions, he walked out with a pure smile as if nothing had happened. It was eerily similar to the recent trials of Rod Blagojevich and some of Bush’s final press conferences. 
Langella not only captured his arrogance, but his very complex emotion as well. You could tell Nixon’s defeat after Frost’s final interview not just from his very slight tears, but when he went over and pet a dog’s head, and asked if it was a dachshund. You could see this man suddenly snap out of his feelings of king-like power, and realize his wrongdoing. He had officially become human.
The one scene of Langella’s portrayal of Nixon I will never forget is at one point when he makes some small talk with Frost before the interview begins. He asks, deadpan and without a smile about Frost’s night, “did you do any fornicating?” Langella never once snaps into a smile. This man was serious.
Movies can often transcend the idea of just merely being a piece of entertainment and become an encapsulation of history. The parallels you could find in this movie between Nixon’s resignation and the Frost interviews with the aforementioned Blagojevich impeachment and Bush press conferences, are undeniable. It is with this that “Frost/Nixon” fits the famous saying “those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it.” “Frost/Nixon” makes its audience aware of its history, and then connects it to the present day. And it will do that, hopefully for generations to come.

Today’s Sign of the Apocalypse: Another Pointless Remake

Leave a reply

Last week, I announced plans of a remake to “Bonnie & Clyde” with Hilary Duff. Today, I am sad to announce that a remake is a go for the Paul Newman classic “Slap Shot.” “Slap Shot” was made in 1977, which is apparently too old for Hollywood. So far, the remake carries the writer of “Fun With Dick & Jane” and the director of “21″ and “Be Cool.”

“Slap Shot” is a movie that still remains funny and only remains outdated in the cars that the characters drive. It also happens to be a way better sports comedy (or sports movie, in general) than most that are made today. I doubt anyone could top the originality and brilliant slapstick that made the original “Slap Shot” such a classic.
Also, who could replace the Hanson Brothers (if you say the Jonas Brothers, I will no longer allow you to read this blog)? But most importantly, how can you replace Paul Newman? Newman’s death has shown us all that he was truly one of a kind and no person could ever replace him. But, really? Who do the people behind the “Slap Shot” remake think they can replace Paul Newman with?
Note: Apparently, there was a direct to DVD sequel to “Slap Shot” that starred Stephen Baldwin and Gary Busey. How about getting Busey and the other Baldwin brother (Alec) to star in the remake? It obviously won’t beat Newman and will still make me angry, but at least then audiences could have one big question answered: what happens when you give Gary Busey a hockey stick?

Movie Review: Paranoid Park

1 Reply

“Milk” wasn’t the only movie Gus Van Sant put out this past year. Early on in 2008, he wrote and directed the little seen “Paranoid Park.” It is a slight masterwork of beautiful cinematography and scattered chronological storytelling.

With “Paranoid Park,” Van Sant returns back to the lush pacific northwest in Portland, Oregon. It centers around skateboarder teenager Alex (Gabe Nevins). Like Harvey Milk, Mike Waters, and Bob from Van Sant’s previous films, Alex lives on the outside edges of society and reality. He scribbles down his current story in a diary. He doesn’t know whether he’ll live another day or be free tomorrow, but all that we and him know is that he accidently killed a man. We just know this but we don’t know how or why. “Paranoid Park” uses Alex’s journal as a guiding voice as it shuffles through the events that lead to this murder and how it effected Alex and everyone around him.
“Paranoid Park” is most like Van Sant’s 1991 masterpiece “My Own Private Idaho.” It has no clear narrative structure and switches between the clear present, and grainy memories. He seems to switch in and out of consciousness and its barely clear whether or not he’s even conscious the whole time. Is the real. Or just some vivid nightmares from the mind of a sleeping teenager?
Unlike Van Sant’s previous films set in Portland, “Paranoid Park” shows a more positive view of the city. It takes place in picturesque suburban neighborhoods rather than the cities junkie infested decaying slums. However, Alex barely stays in this area and would rather be in Paranoid Park, the skate park from which the film takes its name. A place where troubled teens go to escape and a place that would soon lead to a horrific tragedy.
“Paranoid Park” is not the kind of movie for those who like clear conclusions traditional narrative structure. Despite this basic outline, the movie is plotless. And I don’t mean to say that in a negative way. Roger Ebert once noticed that sometimes it’s not what it’s about but how it’s about. I never fully understood that but you can apply it here. The movie is not really about what happens physically as a result of this murder and how it will be resolved but how it affects Alex emotionally and very subtlety scars the lives of everyone he knows. This film is not about overcoming guilt, it’s about how it twists your perception of reality if you hide it too long.
Despite its stunning capturing of the Portland landscape and story that allows you to put the puzzle pieces together for yourself, “Paranoid Park” is not without its many flaws. The story sometimes gets off track and can get a bit meandering at times. It really goes nowhere when there could’ve been much more. But maybe it was supposed to be like that. After all, isn’t that what being a teenager is all about: wandering aimlessly, not knowing where you’re headed next, and just waiting for something big to happen and take you somewhere, anywhere?

Stephen Colbert Loves Archie Moore’s…

Leave a reply

…Well, not exactly. But as part of his daily piece on the tragic buffalo wing shortage, Stephen Colbert reported about a major spill of buffalo wing sauce outside of none other than my favorite restaurant Archie Moore’s in Fairfield. This wing/sauce shortage is certainly a tragedy, but maybe Colbert’s mentioning will provide Archie’s with as boost in business. That is, because any time Colbert seems to put his name on something it turns to gold. Those grizzly bears have nothing on him.

Here is the hilarious clip in its entirety:

Jon Stewart: Savior of the Economy?

Leave a reply

Last month, I reported about how Jon Stewart’s hard pressing interview of Mike Huckabee about the issue of gay marriage earned him a spot as the most reliable name in news. Last night, he outdid himself once again. While interviewing Gwen Ifill and talking about Obama’s new economic stimulus package, he claims that the money shouldn’t go to the banks, but rather to the people who owe money so they can pay off their debts. He then followed it by saying this will happen in “a land of rainbows and unicorns.” I don’t know a thing about economics but, that idea is pretty brilliant. Could it work? Does this plan sound plausible to you? Why haven’t any other news anchors thought of alternatives? Is anyone in Washington (or the media) listening? 

See the interview below:

Today’s Sign of the Apocalypse

Leave a reply

Ideas for remakes of classics get thrown around in Hollywood nearly every day. Most, especially when its remaking a classic, annoy me. Some don’t just annoy me, but make me very angry. Today, I found out that Independent studio Cypress Moon (yes, indie studios can make mistakes too) is planning an unnecessary remake of the 1967 classic “Bonnie and Clyde.” “Bonnie and Clyde” was known along with “The Graduate” for being one of the films from 1967 that broke America from its innocence and hinted at the growing counterculture movement. It’s lightning fast, excessive violence doesn’t fail to shock today and its story is still as entertaining as ever.

So, why is it being remade? And an even bigger question, why is the remake planning on starring “Lizzie McGuire”‘s Hilary Duff and Kevin Zegers, star of four “Air Bud” movies and “MVP: Most Valuable Primate?” I wish this last sentence was a joke, but unfortunately it’s as real as Kevin Costner’s Oscar.
Hopefully this idea will go the way of Michael Bay’s “Rosemary’s Baby” remake and get axed as soon as possible.
Read the full story at:
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/?p=9099#comments

Back Home

Leave a reply

Sad news. I have officially left Park City and Sundance in return for Westport and Staples. Instead of the Rockies, I get the Long Island Sound (not necesarrily a horrible thing). However, if I want to see a movie, at least I have the option of seeing “Hotel For Dogs” instead of “Push.” Oh, joy.