MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

SNL Oscar Parody

SNL did “I Drink Your Milkshake!” as a Food Network show, also parodying No Country and Juno in the process.
For some reason, I can’t get YouTube this morning… so here is another site with the piece.
What struck me, however, was that the Oscar satire, the night before, was in the third half hour of the show… the half hour of the dregs. How little interest is there in The Oscars this year?

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “SNL Oscar Parody”

  1. Noah says:

    Well, the skit is based around a character from a movie that has only made thirty or so million dollars. So, I guess the SNL producers didn’t think there were enough people watching that would get the joke. If only something like 4 million people saw There Will Be Blood and 7 or 8 million watch SNL, they knew upfront they’d be alienating half the audience.
    Very funny skit, though. Bill Hader’s Plainview is unbelievable.

  2. Noel Murray says:

    There was a sketch in the first half-hour that referenced all 5 Best Picture nominees.

  3. Krazy Eyes says:

    I was impressed that for an SNL skit he didn’t repeat the same set-up with another 4-5 customers. I also agree that Hader did a fantastic job.

  4. Geoff says:

    Not a bad skit, no real point to bring Anton Chigurgh into it – in fact, I would think he would be enough for a skit all his own.
    There Will Be Blood is probably heading towards $45 or $50 million and I have to say it has already overperformed. I saw the movie, last week, it is about as uncommercial a film as you are likely to see.
    Just bizarre, I kind of liked it. The comparisons between Day-Lewis’ performance and Pacino in Scarface are pretty apt – go-for-broke role that just dominates; verging on self-parody, you don’t completely buy it, and yet it works.

  5. lazarus says:

    The difference is that Pacino wasn’t believable in any way whatsoever.
    I feel sorry for people who have nothing better to do than watch the godawful Saturday Night Live. What makes you think that after 15 years of mediocrity it’s suddenly going to become good again? 10 minutes of good humor aren’t worth the 90 minute investment. The few skits that do have a funny idea are usually drawn out to the point where they aren’t anymore (as Krazy Eyes alluded to).
    I’m also surprised they missed the opportunity to work the bowling pin/alley in. Isn’t that the whole punchline to the thing? It would have made much more sense than dragging Chigurh and the cattle gun into it.

  6. Noah says:

    Laz, I watch (usually by TiVo) SNL every week and I’ve watched it since I was a kid. They’ve said the show has been dead for years and I remember when people were railing on it sixteen years ago for being unfunny, those were the seasons of Mike Myers, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, Chris Rock, David Spade, Rob Schneider, and Tim Meadows. Not too shabby if you ask me.
    Seven years later it was dead again when it was populated by Molly Shannon, Will Ferrell, Cheri Oteri, Ana Gasteyer, Darrell Hammond and was written by head writer Tina Fey. SNL is always relevant because it is where the future of comedy is brought to the limelight. It’s also still remarkably funny sometimes.
    Sure, there are a lot of sketches that fall flat, but there are also some that kill. The Digital Shorts have injected new life into the show and they have a lot of talented folks there, including Seth Myers, Andy Samberg, Amy Poehler and Kristen Wiig.
    So, if you don’t like SNL, that’s fine. But don’t “feel sorry” for me for thinking it’s not a bad way to spend fifty-five minutes (if you fast forward through the music and commercials).

  7. Eric says:

    That’s it? Somebody owes me four minutes of my life back.
    Hader had the voice right– he probably brought it to the writers but they had no idea what to do with it.

  8. grandcosmo says:

    I agree that Hader did a very good impression but the skit was beyond lame.
    It was on the level of “Epic Movie” and those films where they think a film reference in and of itself is funny.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon