|
|
Post by robeiae on May 14, 2017 8:50:23 GMT -5
I grew up watching SNL. What I loved most about it was that it was so hit-or-miss in its early years. Some skits were rolling-on-the-floor funny, while others were just embarrassing to watch because they were so un-funny. And that's because--for the writers and the cast--nothing was taboo. They'd roll the dice and sometimes they'd lose. If there was a news story about SNL, it was in reference to some line being crossed or to one person or another being outraged by some skit or performer. In that regard, here's Charlton Heston's 1978 letter to NBC (which he read on the SNL 15th anniversary show): That's about right, that was how SNL was viewed by an awful lot of people in the 70's and 80's. And the mainstream news certainly never looked to SNL for stories, as it were. Of course, SNL was as likely to mock the top anchors and reporters as they were to mock Presidents (who can forget the "the Pepsi Syndrome," with Baba Wawa reporting live on the Super Colossal President (Carter)? That was in '79. Here's a bit with Dana Carvey mocking Brokaw from 1996 (also about Gerald Ford). Now go look at some of the main pages of the networks this morning. CNN has two references to SNL skits at the top of its page, right next to a story about North Korea missile launches. You know, I find the skits funny, I really do. Trump and company make good fodder (so does Clinton, et al). But I guess a part of me might be happier if I didn't, if the humor was lost on me but still appreciated by my kids. Of course, SNL wants to make money at the end of the day, and maximizing appeal means maximizing advertiser profits, right? *sigh* |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 9:34:05 GMT -5
here's the thing, Rob.
1) With the internet and cable, there's simply waaaay more space out there to fill with news. We no longer have paper newspapers and 3 channels that have news at specified hours. We have countless outlets carrying news 24/7. I suppose they could all carry the same big news stories and repeat them over and over, but yeah, that might get dull. In the 70s and 80s, they had to pick and choose what they ran. Not now. They can run all kinds of stuff, and the viewer does the choosing.
2) because internet news runs on advertising, outlets are going to run stuff that gets them clicks. It's no longer the case that everyone gets their local newspaper and turns on the 6 o'clock news, whatever their taste and political sensibilities.
I click on those SNL things. I rarely watch any show regularly when it's on, but if I see an article referring to a skit I might enjoy, I click. So do millions. Hence, they run the stories.
3) Trump and his administration have really created an opportunity and appetite for political satire that is unrivaled in modern memory. In the 70s and 80s, you made a cute Gerald Ford tripping joke or a peanut farmer joke. The 90s and 00s gave us Bill Clinton's sexual peccadillos to mock and George W's verbal word salad to giggle at, but you know, by and large most of the time our presidents were not ridiculous. If Nixon were around now, they might do a fair bit out of his downfall, but then again, though his administration went down in flames, it wasn't nearly as ludicrous as the Trump/Conway/Spicer et al. show. I mean, Trump is almost impossible NOT to satirize. When have we EVER had anything like his Twitter account?
And people have always enjoyed satire of their leaders -- they just haven't had the opportunity that we do to indulge and spread it.
Moreover, it's my belief that satire and humor can be excellent tools for getting a message out. If we forget for an instant how ridiculous some of Trump's behaviour is, and accept it as the political normal, we are fucking doooooomed.
So, nothing to see here, IMO. It's a combination of Trump being such an over-the-top reality TV spectacle and attention whore, and the internet/cable 24/7 info bonanza, further enhanced by Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 14, 2017 9:50:06 GMT -5
There's nothin counter-cultural about SNL anymore. Trey Parker and Matt Stone still manage, from time to time. SNL is regressivism parading as counter-culture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 9:51:16 GMT -5
heh. If you want counter-culture now that isn't covered by mainstream news and widely adopted by pop culture, you might look to poetry. Lots of literary magazines out there with tiny circulations, barely surviving on the fringes, publishing stuff the yuuuge outlets don't think will appeal to the masses...
BTW, just watched Idiocracy the other night for the first time. Holy crap, we are far too close to being there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 14, 2017 10:09:41 GMT -5
To define counter-culture, you must first define the prevailing culture. I'd argue that the Nuremberg prosecutor you posted about is far more counter-cultural than either SNL or South Park.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 14, 2017 11:27:42 GMT -5
Not being a reader of literary poetry, I wonder if it's truly counter-cultural, or simply not widely known. Does it challenge or enforce the prevailing cultural paradigms?
ETA: Idiocracy is counter-cultural, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 11:42:53 GMT -5
Not being a reader of literary poetry, I wonder if it's truly counter-cultural, or simply not widely known. Does it challenge or enforce the prevailing cultural paradigms? ETA: Idiocracy is counter-cultural, IMO. Agree that Idiocracy is counter-cultural. Political poetry comes in all flavors. It's pretty easy to find stuff that caters to the left, obviously -- to the extent people are still writing political poetry, it's mostly from the left. But there is other stuff, and a good bit on current events. Poetry itself is so unread these days that it might count as counter-cultural just by virtue of being poetry (unless you count rap and song lyrics, and I'm a snob who mostly doesn't, though some certainly is poetry. E.g., Tom Waits is a poet -- but look how not particularly popular he is. ) I think my recent entry to Nicolas Kristoff's Trump poetry contest might have qualified as almost counter-cultural these days, simply by implying that some blame belongs on both sides of our great political divide. That's not a popular view on either side. Against Itself
Across a vast chasm the nation divided each faction fabricating bricks of straw and mud to hurl at their antagonists and brothers stack thick till neither side could see the other -- while amidst the bloody siege their leader called not for bridges but more walls. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 14, 2017 12:08:04 GMT -5
I'd call Against Itself c-c for the reason you stated, and I'd argue against most political poetry being c-c for the same reason. Politics permeates culture these days. Anti-war and anarchist writing would be c-c these days, imo. Pro-freedom writing in general qualifies as c-c today, given the rise of the regulatory, surveillance and police state. Atheism is far less c-c than in my youth. The link below is probably the most c-c writing I've seen lately. www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 14, 2017 13:47:27 GMT -5
There's plenty of reason to be concerned since SNL and the like may be considered informative to some of the lesser aware members of our population, but as satire, they don't have to be accurate.
Most of the stuff they do on Trump and stuff is brought on by themselves. It's ripe for satire, but of course there's little balance.
I also have little sympathy for Trump, but I can imagine some of the stuff against his kids might be very hurtful.
For the record, I don't watch SNL, but I've seen it here or there, mostly because my daughter likes it.
|
|
