I really like your idea of chameleon cinema, but I can’t agree with your angle here. To dislike a film for not fulfilling your vision is a fallacy at best, despite simultaneously being a showcase of your own creative tenacity. (To be honest, I much prefer your version over what we got, but what we got was still fine).
I’d rather view Saturday Night as refreshing in the face of Reitman’s filmography. Ghostbusters was bs, and I’m not a fan of Juno, but Saturday Night really worked for me as a boiler plate kind of film. I even rewatched it to try and come to terms with the negative review I had been seeing last year, but my opinion did not change. It’s a pretty solid movie with little formal qualities outside of the usual conventions: ticking clock to induce urgency, swooping cameras during dialogue scenes (which I liked because dialogue scenes are always tough to shoot and edit, and giving them movement is challenging). I also felt like it was calling for some sort of cultural revolution in some mundane, corporate way. The general theme of young voices rising above the old is super relevant and one of the main tenets of Filmstack itself.
My angle has nothing to do with what I like or dislike, or what I want the film to be. None of my angles ever do. This has to do with maximizing the narrative and technical essence of SNL in a movie about SNL. It does this with Nicholas Braun (and is why I was able to see this angle at all), but then uses the rest of its pieces to settle for coasting on vibes, sketch recreations, and themes that it doesn't actively tackle so much as connect to happenstancely by way of being a movie about SNL.
The film could have very easily maintained the ticking clock/urgency, swooping camera, and those aforementioned themes while going the distance on the one aspect that no other film could have possibly indulged or leveraged with any sort of significance (namely, the SNLification of its narrative and technical meat). There was specific cinematic real estate here that only Saturday Night could have filled, and it neglected to fill it beyond Nicholas Braun.
We're not doing the film any favours if we fail to call this out while saying it's fine or solid because it had aspects we liked. Not saying you're wrong for thinking/saying this, but we need to look beyond our partialities when it comes to film criticism, and subsequently ask ourselves what we notice instead of what we feel.
True, although it wasn’t just that I liked the camera movements and the ticking clock rather than I thought they upheld what the film was attempting to accomplish. I guess that’s what I mean by “solid,” not the best word ever but a reflection on the fact that I found the film to function as it intended. Could it have been better? Absolutely, and I see now that that is what you intended to say. We absolutely cannot just roll over and let a film be good just because it worked, and we certainly should demand more from cinema, especially since the industry tends to avoid risk, and that results in a movie like Saturday Night.
While the camera movement, ticking clock and overarching (albeit undeveloped) theme of youthful vigor and creative spirit worked, that’s only because they’ve been conventionalized. It was like Birdman’s cheap knockoff.
Damn, the more I type about this film the more I see where you’re coming from.
Yeah, also important to the whole equation is questioning what all of these things are working in service of, and why. You're right that the ticking clock is helpful for a sense of urgency, but there's nothing particularly interesting about urgency for urgency's sake, which seems to be the operation of Saturday Night here.
The film, by any estimation, was aiming to be a manic pressure cooker, and I certainly wouldn't say it failed at that. My question is, why make it about the premiere of SNL? Any story can utilize sweeping cameras, clocks, and the energy of youthful showmen to instil scrappy, breakneck intensity, but only Saturday Night could have made Dan Aykroyd into a costume/character, utilized scripted breaking laughter, and called subtextual and diegetic attention to the legacy of SNL by incorporating the show's visual language and viewer-cast member dynamics into the film.
And yet, this singular identity didn't manifest beyond Nicholas Braun. At that point, I would argue that it's precisely Reitman's intent that got in the way of the most significant version of Saturday Night.
Love this take on the movie. i would have much preferred your version.
I found that Curb your Enthusiasm did this well too. The Producers season followed the same plot as the stage show, while the Seinfeld reunion season was just that, and played into the tropes of a reunion in each episode.
Wow, you went with Will Ferrell's Old Prospector, that's a crazy deep cut. GUS CHIGGINS!
I think I get this idea of chameleonic cinema. But I don't know, this movie's structure did not work for me. It's not funny nor is it that concerned with being funny as much as it is with the ART of comedy, which alone is the antithesis of comedy itself. STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP WHERE YOU AT.
Did you catch that the writers room had boxes of Colon Blow? Maybe if the whole movie was in that spirit it would have worked for me, even if it was more than a little esoteric.
I wouldn't even say this movie had a structure at all; it's pure-strain showbiz mania, which is, frankly, lazy. Chameleon cinema is what it SHOULD have been, but it never manifested further than Nicholas Braun, and even then, it was on total accident.
Didn't catch the Colon Blow bit! I confess I haven't watched a whole lot of SNL (hence why my dice roll for the example character turned up Ferrell's Prospector), so it would have gone over my head anyway. If I'm correct in assuming that that was for the longtime SNL fans who know their references or newcomers who have done extensive homework, then the film is... basically falling into the same nostalgia traps that willfully kneecap a lot of studio features these days (like, for instance, Reitman's Ghostbusters movies, which I hope get shot into the sun in my lifetime)?
Some people may not even realize the fact that Jim Henson had an SNL connection before seeing this movie, since his Muppet work with the show didn't continue over the show's long run.
I really like your idea of chameleon cinema, but I can’t agree with your angle here. To dislike a film for not fulfilling your vision is a fallacy at best, despite simultaneously being a showcase of your own creative tenacity. (To be honest, I much prefer your version over what we got, but what we got was still fine).
I’d rather view Saturday Night as refreshing in the face of Reitman’s filmography. Ghostbusters was bs, and I’m not a fan of Juno, but Saturday Night really worked for me as a boiler plate kind of film. I even rewatched it to try and come to terms with the negative review I had been seeing last year, but my opinion did not change. It’s a pretty solid movie with little formal qualities outside of the usual conventions: ticking clock to induce urgency, swooping cameras during dialogue scenes (which I liked because dialogue scenes are always tough to shoot and edit, and giving them movement is challenging). I also felt like it was calling for some sort of cultural revolution in some mundane, corporate way. The general theme of young voices rising above the old is super relevant and one of the main tenets of Filmstack itself.
My angle has nothing to do with what I like or dislike, or what I want the film to be. None of my angles ever do. This has to do with maximizing the narrative and technical essence of SNL in a movie about SNL. It does this with Nicholas Braun (and is why I was able to see this angle at all), but then uses the rest of its pieces to settle for coasting on vibes, sketch recreations, and themes that it doesn't actively tackle so much as connect to happenstancely by way of being a movie about SNL.
The film could have very easily maintained the ticking clock/urgency, swooping camera, and those aforementioned themes while going the distance on the one aspect that no other film could have possibly indulged or leveraged with any sort of significance (namely, the SNLification of its narrative and technical meat). There was specific cinematic real estate here that only Saturday Night could have filled, and it neglected to fill it beyond Nicholas Braun.
We're not doing the film any favours if we fail to call this out while saying it's fine or solid because it had aspects we liked. Not saying you're wrong for thinking/saying this, but we need to look beyond our partialities when it comes to film criticism, and subsequently ask ourselves what we notice instead of what we feel.
True, although it wasn’t just that I liked the camera movements and the ticking clock rather than I thought they upheld what the film was attempting to accomplish. I guess that’s what I mean by “solid,” not the best word ever but a reflection on the fact that I found the film to function as it intended. Could it have been better? Absolutely, and I see now that that is what you intended to say. We absolutely cannot just roll over and let a film be good just because it worked, and we certainly should demand more from cinema, especially since the industry tends to avoid risk, and that results in a movie like Saturday Night.
While the camera movement, ticking clock and overarching (albeit undeveloped) theme of youthful vigor and creative spirit worked, that’s only because they’ve been conventionalized. It was like Birdman’s cheap knockoff.
Damn, the more I type about this film the more I see where you’re coming from.
Yeah, also important to the whole equation is questioning what all of these things are working in service of, and why. You're right that the ticking clock is helpful for a sense of urgency, but there's nothing particularly interesting about urgency for urgency's sake, which seems to be the operation of Saturday Night here.
The film, by any estimation, was aiming to be a manic pressure cooker, and I certainly wouldn't say it failed at that. My question is, why make it about the premiere of SNL? Any story can utilize sweeping cameras, clocks, and the energy of youthful showmen to instil scrappy, breakneck intensity, but only Saturday Night could have made Dan Aykroyd into a costume/character, utilized scripted breaking laughter, and called subtextual and diegetic attention to the legacy of SNL by incorporating the show's visual language and viewer-cast member dynamics into the film.
And yet, this singular identity didn't manifest beyond Nicholas Braun. At that point, I would argue that it's precisely Reitman's intent that got in the way of the most significant version of Saturday Night.
Love this take on the movie. i would have much preferred your version.
I found that Curb your Enthusiasm did this well too. The Producers season followed the same plot as the stage show, while the Seinfeld reunion season was just that, and played into the tropes of a reunion in each episode.
Cheers Gareth!
I haven't watched much CYE, but that sounds fascinating; might start using my limited-by-choice television time accordingly!
It’s worth a shot! Season 4 is the Producers one :)
Wow, you went with Will Ferrell's Old Prospector, that's a crazy deep cut. GUS CHIGGINS!
I think I get this idea of chameleonic cinema. But I don't know, this movie's structure did not work for me. It's not funny nor is it that concerned with being funny as much as it is with the ART of comedy, which alone is the antithesis of comedy itself. STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP WHERE YOU AT.
Did you catch that the writers room had boxes of Colon Blow? Maybe if the whole movie was in that spirit it would have worked for me, even if it was more than a little esoteric.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
I wouldn't even say this movie had a structure at all; it's pure-strain showbiz mania, which is, frankly, lazy. Chameleon cinema is what it SHOULD have been, but it never manifested further than Nicholas Braun, and even then, it was on total accident.
Didn't catch the Colon Blow bit! I confess I haven't watched a whole lot of SNL (hence why my dice roll for the example character turned up Ferrell's Prospector), so it would have gone over my head anyway. If I'm correct in assuming that that was for the longtime SNL fans who know their references or newcomers who have done extensive homework, then the film is... basically falling into the same nostalgia traps that willfully kneecap a lot of studio features these days (like, for instance, Reitman's Ghostbusters movies, which I hope get shot into the sun in my lifetime)?
Some people may not even realize the fact that Jim Henson had an SNL connection before seeing this movie, since his Muppet work with the show didn't continue over the show's long run.