Movie Review

Saturday Night is a fun frenetic you-were-there look at debut of SNL

Saturday Night recreates the hours leading up to the debut episode of Saturday Night Live.

Photo by Hopper Stone

Saturday Night Live is a comedy institution that just started its historic 50th season, a show that is ingrained into American pop culture in a way that few things have ever been. Of course, it wasn’t always that way, especially at the beginning. The tumultuous time leading up to its 1975 debut is the focus of the new film, Saturday Night.

The frenetic film mostly follows Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) as he tries to herd a bunch of disparate pieces into the semblance of a TV show. Not only must he deal with the varying personalities of the show’s stars - Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith), Gilda Radner (Ella Hunt), Dan Aykroyd (Dylan O’Brien), Laraine Newman (Emily Fairn), John Belushi (Matt Wood), Garrett Morris (Lamorne Morris, no relation), and Jane Curtin (Kim Matula) - but also a constant barrage of questions from writers, producers, studio executives, and more.

The camera is in almost constant motion as Michaels moves from one part of Studio 8H in New York City’s 30 Rockefeller Plaza to another, putting out fires (sometimes literally), approving changes (up to literally the last second), and trying to display confidence in a product that had never been tested before.

Directed by Jason Reitman and written by Reitman and Gil Kenan, the film is best viewed as what it is, a dramatization of events on that first fateful night. Although there have been various accounts of what the early days of SNL were like (most notably Live From New York by James Andrew Miller and Tom Shales), only those who were there in person know what it was truly like to launch the show.

The film definitely fudges and conflates certain things, but it’s the general feeling that it gives off that matters the most. The pace is such that it’s nearly impossible to catch everything put on screen or understand the importance of every character. But what is readily apparent is the passionate-if-slapdash way Michaels and his crew are trying to organize the show, as well as the seemingly never-ending well of humor possessed by everyone on its staff.

Still, it’s fair to wonder for whom exactly the film is being made. While many of the people in the film are iconic and well-known, just as many are not, and only SNL superfans will know everyone who makes their way on screen. The speed of the film’s storytelling is great for the atmosphere it creates, but it doesn’t stop to explain who anyone is, so viewers who don’t have a good grasp of mid-’70s pop culture may find themselves a little lost.

The film is so packed full of people that you can’t give everyone their just due. LaBelle, who was a great stand-in for a young Steven Spielberg in The Fabelmans, proves just as adept in his portrayal of Michaels, save for the distinctive voice. Among the multiple other notable performances are Smith, Morris, Rachel Sennot as Michaels’ then-wife Rosie Shuster, and Nicholas Braun as both Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson.

Saturday Night is a loving tribute to a show with which most Americans have at least a passing familiarity, even if it sometimes feels like it was made just for the show’s most ardent viewers. The level of detail spent recreating the look and feel of SNL’s early days makes it a fun and compelling film, no matter if what it shows is completely true or not.

---

Saturday Night opens in theaters on October 11.

movies film

Movie Review

Andrew Garfield leads peasant rebellion in medieval film The Uprising

Photo by Betina La Plante/Focus Features

Andrew Garfield in The Uprising.

Writer/director Paul Greengrass made his name with a cinéma vérité style of filmmaking that brought immediacy and depth to three Jason Bourne films, United 93, Captain Phillips, and more. In The Uprising, he uses those skills to tell the story of the so-called Peasants’ Revolt in 14th century England.

Greengrass wastes no time starting the main plot as Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) and his fellow villagers object to onerous taxes put on them by the country’s nobility, led by the young King Richard II (Woody Norman), to fund an ongoing war. Ploughman initiates a violent response over the tone-deaf — and unseemly — way the king’s guard go about their business, and the rebellion soon starts to spread across the countryside, with the citizens looking for a degree of autonomy.

The ever-expanding group makes their way toward London to try to make their case to the king himself. Meanwhile, the king’s top advisors, including Archbishop Sudbury (Stephen Dillane) and Treasurer Hales (Tom Hollander), try to usurp power from the inexperienced monarch even as the king’s mother (Katherine Waterston) tries to get him to be more assertive.

The history of the English monarchy is long and lurid, as Shakespeare detailed in multiple plays, including Richard II. Though the events in the film took place almost 650 years ago, it’s easy to see parallels between what the peasants were fighting for and modern-day politics. Greengrass’ storytelling intent is solid, and the righteous anger the citizens feel is initially relatable and palpable.

But the populism theme of the story soon gets bogged down in drudgery and minutiae that is difficult to understand, especially when the details are lost in the thick regional English accents. The leaders of the rebels — including John Ball (Jamie Bell), Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), and Alyce (Thomasin McKenzie) — are shown doing a lot of planning, but the strong feelings they have about their quest don’t come across well, leaving the audience as passive observers.

When there is action, Greengrass and his team employ a frenetic style that is not great for comprehension. While the gist of what is happening and what side is winning is legible, individual moments go by so quickly so as to be nearly meaningless. Save for Ploughman, any connection that has been made with various characters proves futile, as Greengrass doesn’t seem to have any time for emotion. Scenes that should feel thrilling or heartbreaking instead come off as empty.

Garfield is a two-time Oscar nominee who has done great work across multiple genres. He’s fine in this role, but whether it’s the story, the filmmaking, or something else, he’s not as captivating as usual. The same goes for other strong actors like Bell, McKenzie, Dillane, Hollander, and Waterston, who each seem to be giving their all to their performances but are somehow muted in the process.

Done right, The Uprising could have been a rip-roaring account of people standing up against their oppressors. What Greengrass has made, though, is a film that can’t translate its medieval story for a modern audience and concentrates too much on unexciting elements and too little on thrilling ones.

---

The Uprising is now playing in theaters.

movies film reviews