Jason Reitman crafts a fun tribute to the historically chaotic events that led to SNL‘s first airing while repeating many of the same faults and problems into the present.
Saturday Night
Directed by Jason Reitman
Starring Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Sennot, Cory Michael Smith, Ella Hunt, Dylan O’Brien, LaMorne Morris, Matt Wood
Runtime: 1 hour, 49 minutes
Synopsis
Lorne Michaels (LaBelle) has 90 minutes before the premiere of Saturday Night Live, but as he tries to wrangle together his crew of misfit comedians and fight the NBC execs pining to cancel the first show, he still has to figure out exactly what the show is.
A Love Letter To Late Night
Back in 2006, former SNL head writer Tina Fey created a little show called 30 Rock. It was a wild, unofficial parody of the happenings at 30 Rockefeller Plaza and the shenanigans that occurred over the years with SNL cast members and general NBC show chaos. I have maintained, given Lorne’s producing of the show that it probably wasn’t as scathing or biting towards him as it could have been, but that show still managed to score a few shots at the NBC management and be all-around hilarious.
Saturday Night is not that.
Don’t get me wrong, it is concerned with the studio involvement that would have destroyed the show and it clearly loves *some* of the characters involved with creating an iconic show. But in weaving this love letter, it’s not really interested in taking any critical looks at the problematic issues that plagued the show’s early years or activities that might have fueled the downfall of some of comedies’ greatest performers.
Saturday is largely centered on Gabriel LaBelle’s portrayal of SNL creator Lorne Michaels and, by extension, his fight with NBC execs and his own ego in developing what the show was and what it will be. That arc is pretty clearly defined and showcases how Michaels eventually learned to become an infamous talent wrangler and if you’re okay with that perspective, then Saturday Night mostly works because we’re given plenty of opportunities to explore Lorne and what he’s dealing with to get the show on air. The one negative with his arc is that we don’t really grasp his thoughts on the cast (most of them just seem to be items he needs to secure on a grocery list). Having more interactions between him and the cast instead of focusing on the fires may have given this narrative a chance to flesh out the other players, but instead, most of these interactions are incredibly superficial and empty.
The Chevy Chase Problem
Whoa boy, we need to talk about two things: how good Cory Michael Smith’s portrayal of Chevy Chase is and how they treated him in the film.
Outside of LaBelle, Smith has the second most screen time and a defined arc that takes place over the course of the film, as Chase is looking forward to what the future holds. SNL fans or even pop culture nerds will know or understand many of the set issues that take place between Belushi (Wood) and Chase, but the film isn’t interested in actually letting us know about that beef. You’re left inserting what you know or inferring / filling in the gaps from a thin narrative which makes Chase into an even bigger asshole and leaves us even more confused about Belushi (more on that in a sec).
Given the knowledge we have about Chase now, it also seems bizarre to include a scene that’s overly predictive and lays out to a younger Chase how much of an alone asshole he’ll become. It’s a joke that would have worked well in the previously mentioned 30 Rock or even his last outing in Dan Harmon’s Community. But it doesn’t make a ton of sense even if elements of that conversation did happen: Chase did ask writer Herb Sargent about his future outlook, but Sargent (played by Tracy Letts in the film) didn’t expound to the degree he does in the film. Look, I’m not against re-contextualizing actors and their problematic pasts, but it seems odd to only do that to Chase and none of the other characters, while also giving this portrayal the most room to breathe, those decisions seem in conflict with one another.
Missed Opportunities
LaMorne Morris’s portrayal as Garrett Morris (no relation) was particularly striking, and while I would have loved to see more of him, the narrative couldn’t seem to make up its mind on how to use him. As a cast member, Garrett was frustrated at how he was used / underutilized in certain scripts by being typecast in certain black caricatures – so Saturday effectively portrays that – but then that’s about it aside from being there for a song later in the film (because of course he is) and short riffs throughout. What’s frustrating is like many others in the film, Garrett’s arc is muddy. We know where he starts, unsure of his place in the cast, and by the end, that hasn’t really changed.
Matt Wood’s portrayal of John Belushi and Dylan O’Brien as Dan Aykroyd are pitch-perfect, but again their arcs are muddy. If you are a major SNL fan, you’ll know that the show was Belushi’s first real foray into TV, and he was worried about how that would affect him and his artistic pursuits…but if you don’t know that fact going into it, his behavior and tantrums seen ridiculous. While this arc is clear in the sense it has a beginning, middle, and end, those points on the graph don’t really resonate with you.
O’Brien’s Aykroyd showcases just how weird of a dude the Ghostbusters (1984) alum really is, though he simply shows up and disappears when needed for various bits. They also showcase how many of the cast members were sleeping with one another through Aykroyd’s relationship with Rosie Shuster, but fail to explore it much further than “this happened,” and some awkward glances peppered throughout. Of the men in the cast, he maybe gets short-changed the most when it comes to having any discernable flow or progress in the story.
However, it’s even worse for every woman on screen. Despite how closely they resemble the players or how effectively they embody or vocalize their mannerisms, I don’t know that I’ve seen a larger waste of talent or potential than the minuscule focus given to them. Rachel Sennot is able to get her head above water a bit in her portrayal of SNL writer and Lorne Michael’s wife Rosie Shuster, but even that is more focused on the changing nature of their marriage (they would eventually divorce in 1980, 5 years after this film is set). Shuster was instrumental in many of the early breakout sketches, but you wouldn’t be able to tell that from the way she’s portrayed in the movie. We can tell she’s important to Lorne, but her impact on the show would appear to be minimal if this film is to be believed.
This has already been stated over the internet but it bears repeating: this movie does a great disservice to Gilda Radner to the point you almost want to burn the whole thing down. Showing the progress of Chevy and Lorne makes sense given their status, making them more of the focus story-wise. But leaving out the other breakout star in Radner and how she pulled off many memorable characters (some of which were written by Shuster) just puts the cherry on top of a poorly constructed, man-centric sundae.
Conclusion / Recommendation
Reitman successfully explores the chaos of TV creation and how much work it takes to create legendary comedy. However, that exploration sidelines too many important and key characters in the great history of SNL to be completely satisfying for everyone.
If you’re an ardent SNL fan, you will either fall in love with this movie or be completely frustrated by it, and unfortunately, you can’t really know that until you see it for yourself.
Score: 6.5 out of 10
- 7- Accurate Portrayals
- When we get to see the different SNL alum come to life, they are great, but those opportunities to shine are limited and constrained by a poor narrative device: a clock.
- 5- Arcs To Nowhere
- Many of the cast members are sidelined to bolster Michaels and Chase, which makes large portions and swaths of this film disappointing for various fans of this lovely band of comedic misfits.
- 8- A Love Romp
- SNL fans will truly enjoy the chaotic energy and spirit of where this story goes and what it represents, especially as various jokes land and the in-show premiere finally comes together.
- 6- Historical Accuracy
- The narrative picks and chooses some elements to combine that, unfortunately, don’t line up with the actual support the show had early on or makes people into villains that don’t deserve that treatment.
Check Us Out On Patreon
Love Nerd Union? Consider supporting us over on Patreon. You’ll get access to early access articles, commercial-free video essays, online discussions and more. Plus, you will be directly responsible for supporting journalism in a field that’s currently being overwhelmed by clickbait focused sites. Supporting us keeps the lights on but it also sets a standard to sites in our field about fair wage practices, citing sources, debunking unconfirmed sources, and helps us investigate stories better.