Instructional Guide: Visiting a Dog Beach

Dear Memorial Day Weekend/Summer OB Dog Beach Visitors:

I'm so happy about your decision to include Fido in your holiday weekend fun. I think it's great - really, I do. However, in an effort to keep myself, my dogs and the streets of Ocean Beach safe, I must alert you to some unspoken OB Dog Beach rules that you are expected to comply with fully:

There's No Need to Bring Food

Picnics at a dog beach are a bad idea. I should not have to tell you that. When my dogs begin sniffing around the elaborate Subway spread you've laid out on your beach towel, I'm going to keep on walking and pretend I don't know them. Because you obviously need to learn the hard way.

If you insist on bringing food to a dog beach, please refrain from burying charcoal, chicken bones and any other food or BBQ remnants in the sand. I can assure you that in the 15 seconds it took you just to decide that disposing of your garbage in the trashcan (located a mere 10 feet away) would require too much effort, my beagles can sniff out, dig up and devour those toxic and potentially fatal items that you've lazily kicked sand upon and left behind.

There is a Need to Control Your Dog

If your dog is obsessively attacking my Chuck It, backpack (which contains only dog leashes, flip flops and house keys...no food) or face, please do not tell me that he's "just playing." In addition to his sharp teeth, long nails and clear lack of discipline, your dog is heavier, taller and stronger than I am.

I'm also fairly certain that when I show up to work on Tuesday, "Don't worry, it was playful" is not going to fly as an acceptable explanation for the scratches and bite marks covering my arms and face.

When Exiting OB...

Please pay attention to the road. While I'm sure the in-depth conversation you're having with your dog is both hilarious and intellectually stimulating, it does not excuse your driving 2 mph, then speeding up, then stopping short for absolutely no reason - other than maybe Fido telling a joke so funny that you just HAD to stop your car in the middle of an intersection.

Driving on the wrong side of the road is also unacceptable behavior, as is putting your left blinker on, beginning to turn right and then darting back out into traffic again while you and your dog have a hearty chuckle about the fact that you have no clue where you're going and nearly just caused a 3 car/4 bike/2 skateboard collision.

Most of OB's residents have no idea what's going on around them, so it's imperative that you do.

I realize that this is a lot to ask, but promise that your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated by regular OBDB patrons as well as all of OB's residents...Not only this weekend, but also throughout the summer.

Thanks so much!
Kellie

Three Generations of QB Controversy

I'm not sure who I feel worse for: Peyton Manning...or Colts fans.

In an ESPN SportsNation poll taken last week (and pictured to the right), 37 percent of Indiana participants voted that Peyton should play for another team rather than stay with the Colts.

Assuming the Indiana voters who participated in this poll are Colts fans, this means that more than a third of Indy's fans are willing to let one of the most prolific quarterbacks in NFL history walk away from their franchise; almost 40 percent of Colts fans are accepting - perhaps even hoping - that this is the end of the Peyton Manning era in Indy.

What they likely don't realize is that there just might not be much to look forward to once Peyton is gone. That quarterbacks of his stature don't come along every day. That they shouldn't rest all of their hopes and aspirations for the franchise on the shoulders of an unproven rookie.

There's a reason why 37 percent of Indy fans are unable to see these realities. And I think we all know who's to blame.

Aaron. Rodgers.

There’s a lot to like about Aaron Rodgers, and there's no questioning how enjoyable he is to watch – on the field, on the sideline, on stage with Justin Timberlake at the ESPYs. I can't wait for him to host SNL (and apparently, 19,508 people on Facebook agree).

His striking resemblance to BJ Novak (who plays Ryan Howard on The Office) certainly doesn't hurt his likeability factor too much either.

Most importantly, Aaron Rodgers gives Patriots fans like myself hope that there can be life after Brady, which is particularly important at a time like this, when it's virtually impossible for us to escape those torturous "Bradying" images.

However, there haven’t been two Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks to play for the same team in the same era like this since Joe Montana and Steve Young in San Francisco – and to a much lesser extent, Bob Griese and Dan Marino in Miami (a city that, oddly enough, seems to understand and appreciate the rarity of truly outstanding QBs).

Since this sort of scenario happens so infrequently (perhaps only once a generation), is the tremendously successful emergence of Aaron Rodgers as Brett Favre’s replacement simply setting Pats and Colts fans up for disappointment? What are the chances that either New England or Indy can bring in a quarterback who is just as - if not more - likeable and talented as Brady and Manning?

Has the precedent set by Aaron Rodgers put guys like Andrew Luck at a great disadvantage (in terms of making it impossible for them to live up to such high expectations)?

And with that in mind...

I find the 49ers/Packers quarterback parallels to be remarkable. The charmingly handsome men involved, the dynamic athleticism and team leadership skills, the pass vs. run playing styles, the accomplishments achieved over similar periods of time, etc., etc.

But there is one major difference: the Montana vs. Young debate still exists. Fans remain split over who was the better QB.

Yet, despite the fact that Aaron Rodgers has started only a fraction of the number of games as Favre did, it seems that everyone has already appointed him the clear winner in the debate over which of the two is the better QB.

Why is this? Is #12 more fun to watch than #4? Is it because Rodgers has accomplished more in his first 62 NFL starts than Favre did? Or is it because we cringe every time we hear that Favre is back in the news? Have Brett’s off-field antics and ostensible personality flaws given Aaron the likeability advantage by default?

I understand that – as we saw with the Tiger Woods scandal – American sports fans are willing to forgive the extramarital/sexual transgressions of their beloved sports figures. But will they forgive Favre for the childish way he left the team, for turning his back on the Packers faithful, for traitorously returning to Lambeau in a Vikings uniform? Boston never did forgive Roger Clemens for displaying similarly disloyal behavior.

More importantly, would Favre have been a team player in Week 17 and sat out the game, sacrificing his notable consecutive start streak to rest up for the playoffs? If history is any indication, then...probably not.

Perhaps Aaron Rodgers really is the better QB...But I have to wonder if Favre has just become so unlikeable that we're unfairly judging his on-field accomplishments based on his off-field actions.

Calling All Weirdos!

Despite the fact that I’m not the biggest Jimmy Fallon fan, I really enjoyed the SNL episode that he hosted this past weekend. But why did it make me giggle so much? None of the sketches were outrageously funny, there was quite a bit of throwback material, and there was no introduction of crazy new characters. So, what was it?

Well, after watching the episode a few more times, I’ve uncovered the reason why I took so much pleasure in this episode, and why I enjoy SNL in general: I’m a weirdo, and always have been.

And By Weirdo, I Mean "Super-Creative"

I was a strange child, always making weird observations, developing new characters and effectively freaking my parents out. I thought differently than the other kids my age…Most little girls dress up as fairy princesses; I dressed up as the ragamuffin version of Cinderella. I became entrenched in the character, legitimately convinced that it was my responsibility to scrub every floor in my house. I was constantly trying to learn odd new things…After seeing a 60 Minutes segment about a man with no arms who performed all of his daily tasks using only his feet – opening doors, writing letters, driving, etc. – I spent the next several months teaching myself to do everything with my feet (and still employ several of those techniques today). I was an absolute monkey, squeezing myself into every small space that I could find, watching TV from wedged up at the top of doorframes, using my body to spell out the alphabet. I liked to improv. During dance recitals, I’d throw choreography to the wind, emerge from my line of tutu-clad stage mates and break into song, impersonating Mary Poppins to the best of my ability and utterly embarrassing my family. I found pure joy in discovering new facial expressions and took a particular liking to miscellaneous percussion instruments.

I was a young Triangle Sally.

The important thing to note here is that my behavior wasn’t motivated by a desire to push buttons, nor was it an attempt to be funny or to get attention. It was never about entertaining an audience or irritating the people around me; it was more about having fun, about entertaining the strange ideas that popped into my head, about bringing a big imagination to life, taking my weird observations to a whole new level. I acted this way either when I didn’t realize that anyone was watching, or while playing a role (which made it feel like nobody was watching me).

And that’s a trait that I’ve carried with me into adulthood. I can perform cheerleading routines in front of packed college football stadiums, but dread opening gifts in front of people. I’ll have the time of my life doing karaoke, but am terrified of public speaking. I’m accused of being intentionally annoying when I’m genuinely just trying to entertain myself. I’m strange and have finally learned to accept – and even embrace – my weirdness.

Strange people like myself tend to thrive on Saturday Night Live, which would explain my deep fondness for the show. I’ve loved SNL for as long as I can remember. The fact that the show lost its “coolness” years ago never stopped me from staying in on Saturday nights to catch new episodes (pre-DVR era) or making references to random SNL skits in daily conversation. A lot of people tune in to the show only during election season, or solely in hopes of there being a new digital short from The Lonely Island crew, but I tune in year-round and for the entire duration of the show simply because I’m drawn to fellow weirdos. SNL offers plenty of quality impersonations and funny pop culture spoofs - which I certainly enjoy, don't get me wrong.

Still, what I really love is the emergence of new characters. There’s just something about the bizarre sense of glee emulating from the person who’s bringing a certain character to life (a bizarre sense of glee that is often confused with schizophrenic or instigative behavior when displayed in normal life) that I’m able to identify with, and that’s a major draw for me. They remind me of the outwardly strange child I was before I was introduced to the concept of socially acceptable behavior and, as a result, became shy and introverted. SNL is a place where strange behavior that would be looked upon as crazy or misunderstood as “pushing buttons” in real life is actually rewarded. Unfortunately, those crazy characters aren’t as plentiful as they used to be, and after watching the Fallon episode, I was left wondering: Where have all the weirdos gone?

Categorizing the Cast

There seem to be three different types of SNL cast members – the Weirdos, the Charmers and the Others (a.k.a. the good sense of humor guys, or GSHGs). To explain, I’ll go back one decade, a period of time that should allow for a fair comparison of how successful the different casts were from season to season based on the types of members that each season was comprised of:

The Weirdos

It’s immediately apparent (to me, anyway) that these cast members were very strange as children. There's a certain twinkle in their eye, a sense that the character they're playing actually lives somewhere deep inside of them (as opposed to their trying to fit into a role that was written for them) and a peculiar ease with which they make some of the most ridiculous facial expressions possible. I recognize, identify with and greatly appreciate all of these qualities.

There are also two different types of Weirdos – the introverts and the extroverts:

The Introverted Weirdos – Chris Kattan, Cheri Oteri, Molly Shannon, Rachel Dratch, Fred Armisen, Kristen Wiig – like myself, embrace their strangeness by channeling it into characters, only comfortable showing their true creative humor while disguised in a role. Gilda Radner paved the way for these strange, introverted cast members.

The Extroverted Weirdos – Will Ferrell, Amy Poehler, Bill Hader, Tracy Morgan, Norm MacDonald – are comfortable in their own skin, but exploit their innate weirdness to enhance and diversify their comedy portfolios.

Both types of Weirdos are quirky but endearing and have blessed the world with some of the most beloved characters to ever come out of SNL. Regardless of the quality of scripts written for them, there is an inherent strangeness inside each of these Weirdos that makes them great. They possess an innate craziness that cannot be acquired over time.

The Charmers

Jimmy Fallon...Horatio Sanz...Jason Sudeikis...Seth Meyers. Growing up, they were probably very popular kids, always at the center of attention. I assume they’re brilliant storytellers, able to entertain everyone backstage at SNL. They ooze charisma. You wanna drink beers with these guys. They get a kick out of themselves, whether you do or not (and you probably do).

Because of their engaging delivery style and extraordinary improvisational skills, their ability to be funny isn’t dependent upon the material that is written for them. Even when a sketch is going poorly, you can tell that these guys are still having a great time. Because they’re having so much fun, it makes them even more fun to watch, regardless of whether or not the sketch itself is funny. Their relatability endears them to us. It also makes us envy how much fun they get to have every Saturday night.

Note: Some cast members – such as Maya Rudolph and Andy Samberg – cannot be categorized as simply Weirdos or Charmers. While they’re undoubtedly charismatic, I strongly suspect that they were also pretty strange children. They have the “potentially schizophrenic” factor, but they interview well, are comfortable in their own skin and seem like the type of people who would be fun to chat with at parties. Vanessa Bayer may also fall into this category, but it's too early to make that call. For arguments sake, let’s say that Maya leans more toward Weirdo and Andy and Vanessa are Charmers.

The Others

Tim Meadows, Chris Parnell, Will Forte, Bobby Moynihan, Kenan Thompson, Abby Elliott, Nasim Pedrad: I'm sure you’re funny in real life. You occasionally do a spot-on impression or introduce us to a funny character. But you lack both the charisma to truly be engaging and the inherent weirdness that makes us wish we could experience the delightful chaos occurring inside that very strange head of yours. And those are the qualities that we NEED from our SNL cast members!

Why This Matters

This SNL episode that Jimmy Fallon hosted demonstrated the importance of television as a visual medium. That’s Broadcast Journalism 101. You don't tell your audience your story, you show it to them. The visual factor is what makes for good TV, and the Weirdos on the SNL cast are evidence of that.

The genuine madness radiating from Mrs. DelVeccio, Mary Katherine Gallagher and joyologist Helen Madden could not have been scripted. Technically, the scripts for those characters may have produced hot catchphrases such as “I keep it now” and “I love it, I love it, I love it,” but Cheri and Molly are the ones truly responsible for the vast popularity of those catchphrases due to their brilliant (and borderline schizophrenic) portrayal of the characters who coined them.

How about The Roxbury Guys? So many years later, it's still impossible to listen to Haddaway's "What is Love" without breaking into that ridiculous dance of theirs. There isn’t much that supporting cast members or writers could have done to make Mr. Peepers or Mango any more memorable. Those characters became fan favorites because of Chris Kattan’s body language.

The same can be said about Kristen Wiig, whose success some attribute to her being a favorite of the SNL writers. While I’ll admit that someone else may have been funny as the Target lady or done justice to a Suze Orman impersonation, there’s no possible way that writers can take credit for the appeal of Wiig’s most popular characters, such as Gilly and Triangle Sally (seeing as Gilly’s vocabulary is limited to “Yes,” “Uh huh,” “What?” and “Sahrry,” and Triangle Sally doesn’t speak at all)…The hilarious absurdity of those characters is entirely a result of Kristen Wiig’s facial expressions and physical, VISUAL humor.

The Charmers, on the other hand, are supporting characters. The word "supporting" is in no way indicative of a lack of talent. It's the opposite, actually. The Charmers make sketches relatable and enhance the funniness of the Weirdos. The Weirdos feed off of the Charmers, and vice versa. The Charmers can easily portray characters that remind us of observations we’ve made or people we’ve encountered in our own lives, whereas the Weirdos introduce us to characters that we could never possibly imagine on our own.

Charmer Jimmy Fallon, for example, is super-charismatic and quick-witted, but doesn't necessarily shine on his own. His star power becomes apparent when he’s paired up with certain other talents – Horatio, Amy, Rachel, The Roots, his Late Night guests – which is why it was such a thrill to see that he’d brought a supporting cast with him onto last weekend’s show. I was flooded with memories of how much fun they used to have with each other. Rachel and Jimmy as the wicked cool Bawston kids. Seth and Amy’s facial expressions on Weekend Update. Kaitlin and Rick at the mall:



The chemistry and enjoyment of these duos was palpable. And this most recent episode reminded me how funny the show can be with the proper ratio of Weirdos to Charmers.

Six seasons ago, in the wake of losing stars like Jimmy Fallon, Rachel Dratch and Horatio Sanz, SNL hit the comedic jackpot when they brought on four new cast members (as featured players): Bill Hader, Andy Samberg, Jason Sudeikas and Kristen Wiig. However, the show’s casting directors have been striking out ever since and little has been done to improve the show. It seems that the formula needed to make the show thrive has been forgotten...

The Forgotten Formula

The cast MUST be comprised of more Weirdos than Charmers; ideally, six Weirdos and two or three Charmers per cast. There should be one or two impression specialists – a Darrell Hammond, Ana Gasteyer and/or Jay Pharoah. And if we have to have the "good sense of humor" guys (GSHGs), there can only be two or three.

"The bus wouldn’t even go to my 'hood. The only bus was 15
chillas garbage trucks goin Guantanamera!" - Richie Inez, Jr.

Unfortunately, during the past four seasons of SNL, the majority of the cast members have been GSHGs. Even worse, these GSHGs seem to be trapped in the one funny character that each of them auditioned and impressed the casting directors with. None of them is truly able to disappear into a new character. Regardless of the character Kenan is attempting to portray, he’s always Bill Cosby. Bobby Moynihan can’t seem to stop playing the whiny 8-year-old (although I do have to give him kudos for Drunk Uncle, one of my favorite characters of 2011). Chris Parnell was always a dork, Will Forte was always irritating, and Tim Meadows was always Tim Meadows. They’re one-trick ponies.

Some argue that you have to give the cast members time to develop and form relationships with the writers. This may be true in some aspects, as I do believe that the “Charm” factor can manifest itself over time – which is what may be happening with Vanessa Bayer and possibly with Taran Killam (although he reminds me too much of Jason Sudeikas…Is it really necessary to have two Jason Sudeikases??) – but I genuinely believe that you can instantly recognize someone who has the “Crazy” factor, and none of these people have it. Paul Brittain has the potential to be “strange,” but I’m skeptical due to the fact that his facial expressions rarely change..

As for the rest of them, they’ve had plenty of time to prove themselves – Nasim with three seasons under her belt, both Bobby and Abby with four, and Kenan with an inexcusable nine! Hey, guess what, guys…If you’re not thriving on the show after three seasons then you never will, as we saw with Tim Meadows, Chris Parnell and Will Forte. Time to try something else!

If Kristen Wiig leaves at the end of the season, the show may not be able to recover. SNL has brought in six different women during the past five seasons, and only one of them (Vanessa Bayer) appears to have any true potential. The others – Casey Wilson, Abby Elliott, Michaela Watkins, Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate – are all beautiful ladies who have healthy senses of humor, a willingness to make fun of themselves and the potential to be successful actresses, but they don’t cut it in sketch comedy. For some reason their humor doesn’t translate well on SNL.

Former cast members Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Janeane Garofalo – as well as former SNL hosts like Emma Stone, Katy Perry and Anna Faris – are also examples of this. They’re undoubtedly beautiful, funny and talented women who have succeeded in sitcoms, stand-up and even movies, but clearly do not shine on SNL. They’re simply not crazy enough.

SNL has been accused of being an unfavorable work environment for women, particularly in terms of the lack of air-time that they’re given. But why have some women – Gilda, Cheri, Molly, Amy, Rachel, Maya, Kristen – been able to shine so brightly on this show?

Because they’re WEIRDOS!

The SNL casting directors must stop hiring pretty women with good senses of humor and start looking for weird, slightly schizophrenic ladies who have enough maniacal funniness in them to shine on their own. But for whatever reason, the casting directors haven’t figured this out.

So What is My Point, Exactly?

I enjoyed the Jimmy Fallon-hosted show this past weekend so much because it had everything SNL has been lacking for the past four years. Each sketch had the proper Weirdo:Charmer:GSHG ratio. Everyone was having fun and getting a kick out of themselves, as well as each other. Some old skits were re-purposed for nostalgia’s sake, but almost everything else was original and creative. There were no filler game shows or recycling of awkward and unfunny sketches that didn’t work the first time but that they for whatever reason feel the need to keep pushing on us. I was entertained by the crazy eyes and the charming smirks. Everyone on the show was enjoying themselves, and it was contagious, even through the TV.

I sincerely hope that the current writers learned a lesson from this show. They need to be reminded of the importance of making sketches visually-dependent/strong. Seth Meyers is great, but if you close your eyes and listen to him report the fake news on Weekend Update, you're really not missing much, whereas Amy Poehler and Norm MacDonald's facial expressions took the comedy to a whole new level that could only be appreciated by keeping your eyes on the screen. You can get the full gist of the many talk shows (The View, The Talk, Today) and game shows that they do now (and which they rely on far too much) even if you’re haphazardly listening from another room, whereas most of the comedy that could be taken from the old Celebrity Jeopardy sketches was visual.

This week's sketches were visual. The only sketch that could really have been appreciated without looking at the screen would have been the cold open (and that's mainly just because we've seen that Bawston sketch so many times be-foo-ah).

I hope that the casting directors took something away from this show as well. The past few seasons mark the first time in at least a decade that SNL has had fewer than four crazy cast members. It’s also the first time that there have been more Charmers than Weirdos. They’re headed in the wrong direction and it makes me nervous, because they just can’t seem to remember the formula that’s worked for them for so long. The cameos made by the wonderfully strange Amy Poehler, Tracy Morgan and Chris Kattan on this past weekend’s show temporarily pushed the cast ratio back to where it needs to be in order for the show to survive.

In other words, SNL: Cool it with hiring charmers and one-trick ponies. The quotas for those talent categories are full. Fewer witty background dancers, more schizophrenics. Ohhh pleeeaaase!