In King Lear there's a Fool. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's King Lear. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's Kent. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools. In King Lear there's Gloucester. On SNL, there are a bunch of fools.
I wonder which is in need of a straight man?
It seems that Shakespeare can so easily master the combination of comedy and drama, straight men and jokesters. He does this to such an effect that each joke gets that much funnier, even though the deliverer becomes predictable, the style and method are so well-suited and intrinsic to the plot and drama the punch lines are that much sweeter.
Saturday Night Live's take is obviously different. It's a comedy show. Then again, it's not always funny with every attempt. Types of humor can get old, skits can fall flat, and, by the end of the night, it seems like they really have nothing left to say.
Maybe SNL can learn from Shakespeare. The one who is funny every time can help at the one who tries to be funny every time. SNL could benefit from if not having moments of high drama and tragedy then better mixing the flavors, pace, and punch lines to make you feel like your not watching the same bad joke over and over.
SNL might try to do this, and probably does to some extent on a skit to skit basis. But week to week is another story. 5 flavors repeated is just as bad 1 all the time. You know they're trying, but realize how sad the attempts are. Instead, maybe SNL should focus on really developing a few sketches, or angles. Better yet, they just be funny.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment