The SNL skit - must have been shot at least twice

[65if2007]

I don't know what it means exactly...

but the famous blurb from Chris Farley's interview -- that sketch must have been shot at least twice.

Has anyone else noticed that? Has EVERYONE else known that all along and am I just late getting the news?

www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Farley.rm

Above is the interview that JoJo links to. It's a comedy sketch anyway, but the appearance is that it was impromptu and that the questions were not disclosed in advance. There's nothing all that significant IMO about Sir Paul's reaction to the question of whether or not PID was a hoax.

We know that his answer was "Yeah, I wasn't really dead", and IMO there's nothing that significant about the way he says it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=go4TJ-FJfho

It's a little different in iamaphoney's RA 22 - Sir Paul reacts more visibly and some might say, more guiltily, maybe even on the verge of shaking his head and denying a hoax.

iamaphoney's critics have accused him of distorting film and audio in such a way as to leave a misleading impression, and the knee-jerk reaction would be that he did the same thing in RA 22 -- speeding and slowing up the film in such a way as to make Sir Paul's reaction to the "death" question more significant than it really was -- as demonstrated by the "real" film which shows no real reaction.

But after looking at both films, even though the participants are dressed the same and are in the same setting, it seems fairly apparent to me that these are two different shootings of the same scene and that -- for whatever reason -- this scene must have been shot at least twice.

Of course, if this scene was shot twice, there would be nothing impromptu about the second rendition. And the PRESUMPTION, at any rate, would be that it was the first impromptu dramatization -- and not the second planned one -- that brought about Sir Paul's more visible reaction to the death question.

Or maybe, despite appearances, the scene was entirely scripted all along.

Comments?

[Doc]

65if2007 said:

I don't know what it means exactly...

but the famous blurb from Chris Farley's interview -- that sketch must have been shot at least twice.

Has anyone else noticed that? Has EVERYONE else known that all along and am I just late getting the news?

www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Farley.rm

Above is the interview that JoJo links to. It's a comedy sketch anyway, but the appearance is that it was impromptu and that the questions were not disclosed in advance. There's nothing all that significant IMO about Sir Paul's reaction to the question of whether or not PID was a hoax.

We know that his answer was "Yeah, I wasn't really dead", and IMO there's nothing that significant about the way he says it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=go4TJ-FJfho

It's a little different in iamaphoney's RA 22 - Sir Paul reacts more visibly and some might say, more guiltily, maybe even on the verge of shaking his head and denying a hoax.

iamaphoney's critics have accused him of distorting film and audio in such a way as to leave a misleading impression, and the knee-jerk reaction would be that he did the same thing in RA 22 -- speeding and slowing up the film in such a way as to make Sir Paul's reaction to the "death" question more significant than it really was -- as demonstrated by the "real" film which shows no real reaction.

But after looking at both films, even though the participants are dressed the same and are in the same setting, it seems fairly apparent to me that these are two different shootings of the same scene and that -- for whatever reason -- this scene must have been shot at least twice.

Of course, if this scene was shot twice, there would be nothing impromptu about the second rendition. And the PRESUMPTION, at any rate, would be that it was the first impromptu dramatization -- and not the second planned one -- that brought about Sir Paul's more visible reaction to the death question.

Or maybe, despite appearances, the scene was entirely scripted all along.

Comments?

I thought it was all performed once---live, and taped as they went along. I have been to a taping of SNL. It's live and whatever happens, happens. Plus, Lorne Michaels has final say on all sketches and script content, I believe.

If they taped it twice, it was a departure from the normal routine. Possible---I don't know everything! (Actually--I am just beginning to see that I know precious little...) anyway, not to dissent, just to offer info if it helps.

[65if2007]

doctorrobert said:

65if2007 said:

I don't know what it means exactly...

but the famous blurb from Chris Farley's interview -- that sketch must have been shot at least twice.

Has anyone else noticed that? Has EVERYONE else known that all along and am I just late getting the news?

www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Farley.rm

Above is the interview that JoJo links to. It's a comedy sketch anyway, but the appearance is that it was impromptu and that the questions were not disclosed in advance. There's nothing all that significant IMO about Sir Paul's reaction to the question of whether or not PID was a hoax.

We know that his answer was "Yeah, I wasn't really dead", and IMO there's nothing that significant about the way he says it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=go4TJ-FJfho

It's a little different in iamaphoney's RA 22 - Sir Paul reacts more visibly and some might say, more guiltily, maybe even on the verge of shaking his head and denying a hoax.

iamaphoney's critics have accused him of distorting film and audio in such a way as to leave a misleading impression, and the knee-jerk reaction would be that he did the same thing in RA 22 -- speeding and slowing up the film in such a way as to make Sir Paul's reaction to the "death" question more significant than it really was -- as demonstrated by the "real" film which shows no real reaction.

But after looking at both films, even though the participants are dressed the same and are in the same setting, it seems fairly apparent to me that these are two different shootings of the same scene and that -- for whatever reason -- this scene must have been shot at least twice.

Of course, if this scene was shot twice, there would be nothing impromptu about the second rendition. And the PRESUMPTION, at any rate, would be that it was the first impromptu dramatization -- and not the second planned one -- that brought about Sir Paul's more visible reaction to the death question.

Or maybe, despite appearances, the scene was entirely scripted all along.

Comments?

I thought it was all performed once---live, and taped as they went along. I have been to a taping of SNL. It's live and whatever happens, happens. Plus, Lorne Michaels has final say on all sketches and script content, I believe.

If they taped it twice, it was a departure from the normal routine. Possible---I don't know everything! (Actually--I am just beginning to see that I know precious little...) anyway, not to dissent, just to offer info if it helps.

Well, why not access both links and watch and see for yourself?

To my mind, there's no doubt that these are two different tapings, the more that I watch each one.

Again, I don't know what it means but this was done at least twice.

[Doc]

65if2007 said:

doctorrobert said:

I thought it was all performed once---live, and taped as they went along. I have been to a taping of SNL. It's live and whatever happens, happens. Plus, Lorne Michaels has final say on all sketches and script content, I believe.

If they taped it twice, it was a departure from the normal routine. Possible---I don't know everything! (Actually--I am just beginning to see that I know precious little...) anyway, not to dissent, just to offer info if it helps.

Well, why not access both links and watch and see for yourself?

To my mind, there's no doubt that these are two different tapings, the more that I watch each one.

Again, I don't know what it means but this was done at least twice.

Well, they do a full rehearsal, and they could have taped that run as well. I do not think that one has a full studio audience. I will look at them.

[JoJo]

I'm working from memory here, but the story I remember reading is this:

It was shown from one camera angle live, Sir Paul didn't like it for whatever reason, and subsequent repeats showed another camera's point of view.. That's the story anyway, I may have mentioned it here way back, don't know the source at this point.

[stevarne0]

Hey everybody, I'm new here, but I've been reading for a while now.

This is awesome! if you watch, you can see that both guys have their hair different in each video.

in the better version, the first one, paul's hair has gel in it or something. farley's hair is really messy.

on the other video where things dont go so well, iaap's video, paul has dry normal hair, no gel, and farley's hair is combed nicely.

very interesting and obviously reshot. it also seems odd that there isnt much audience laughter, as if it werent filmed live

[65if2007]

stevarne0 said:

Hey everybody, I'm new here, but I've been reading for a while now.

This is awesome! if you watch, you can see that both guys have their hair different in each video.

in the better version, the first one, paul's hair has gel in it or something. farley's hair is really messy.

on the other video where things dont go so well, iaap's video, paul has dry normal hair, no gel, and farley's hair is combed nicely.

very interesting and obviously reshot. it also seems odd that there isnt much audience laughter, as if it werent filmed live

Thank you for actually WATCHING the two scenes, stevarne0.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Farley's hair is considerably messier in the one version and is relatively neat in the version where Sir Paul's reaction is more dramatic.

In that version, Sir Paul's hair is drier than in the other.

In the "more dramatic" version, if you will -- the "Rotten Apple" version, Farley is holding his cards only in his right hand as he asks the question; in the other one, he's holding the cards in BOTH hands.

In a number of subtle ways, you can tell that this is not the exact same dramatization.

[tafultong]

65if2007 said:

stevarne0 said:

Hey everybody, I'm new here, but I've been reading for a while now.

This is awesome! if you watch, you can see that both guys have their hair different in each video.

in the better version, the first one, paul's hair has gel in it or something. farley's hair is really messy.

on the other video where things dont go so well, iaap's video, paul has dry normal hair, no gel, and farley's hair is combed nicely.

very interesting and obviously reshot. it also seems odd that there isnt much audience laughter, as if it werent filmed live

Thank you for actually WATCHING the two scenes, stevarne0.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Farley's hair is considerably messier in the one version and is relatively neat in the version where Sir Paul's reaction is more dramatic.

In that version, Sir Paul's hair is drier than in the other.

In the "more dramatic" version, if you will -- the "Rotten Apple" version, Farley is holding his cards only in his right hand as he asks the question; in the other one, he's holding the cards in BOTH hands.

In a number of subtle ways, you can tell that this is not the exact same dramatization.

I will go back and look at it, but you may be talking about the difference between the live performance and the rehearsal, which was also shot and has circulated among collectors.

[stevarne0]

how many other skits from snl have rehearsal tapes floating around?

not that they dont exist, mind you, but this is a first for me. When I saw IAAP's video I assumed that was the version I always saw. maybe it is

[Doc]

Oh, I see, yes, obviously two different run thru-s of the same sketch. Hard to know why.
Both are a bit awkward as Farley's character is so (intentionally I guess) so insecure and self-effacing, and in both Sir Paul is as patient and tries to be as supportive as is humanly possible. How much of it is purely acting and how much is real in Farley's torturedly nervous deliver is anyone's guess, though I heard he was a very confident affable man on set (though his drug inclinations indicate otherwise) but either way, it's something I would wager that Sir Paul clearly new of in advance of both tapings, and was game for it. Not especially nervous and not put out. I think his neck action in the RA video while reacting is just a visible acting beat, meant to play up how seemingly absurd was the question. Actually, the question, all things being equal, IS absurd, but only most of us here feel, that the answer, ironically, is NOT.
Surely by that broadcast, all such questions of Sir Paul, were probably seeming to be old hat.

[65if2007]

doctorrobert said:

Oh, I see, yes, obviously two different run thru-s of the same sketch. Hard to know why.
Both are a bit awkward as Farley's character is so (intentionally I guess) so insecure and self-effacing, and in both Sir Paul is as patient and tries to be as supportive as is humanly possible. How much of it is purely acting and how much is real in Farley's torturedly nervous deliver is anyone's guess, though I heard he was a very confident affable man on set (though his drug inclinations indicate otherwise) but either way, it's something I would wager that Sir Paul clearly new of in advance of both tapings, and was game for it. Not especially nervous and not put out. I think his neck action in the RA video while reacting is just a visible acting beat, meant to play up how seemingly absurd was the question. Actually, the question, all things being equal, IS absurd, but only most of us here feel, that the answer, ironically, is NOT.
Surely by that broadcast, all such questions of Sir Paul, were probably seeming to be old hat.

Doc, I suspect that your take on it is accurate. I had thought and I suppose that others including iamaphoney had thought that the sketch was entirely impromptu -- that Sir Paul was simply told that Farley would be playing a nervous and ineffectual interviewer who would ask him nerdy questions and that he -- Sir Paul -- should act naturally and play it straight.

And consequently, I had thought -- and I suppose that others including iamaphoney had thought -- that the "hoax" question -- however inartfully delivered -- when it was first delivered took Sir Paul by surprise and startled a guilty reaction from him.

But again, I suspect that your take on it is fairly accurate and that this sketch -- although it's amusing and although it constitutes another small chapter in the PID saga -- is not indicative of anything relevant to the issue at hand.

[MikeNL]

it's so obvious !

[TotalInformation]

I think it's SOP for SNL to tape their full dress rehearsal. That way they have tape of extra take if something goes too wrong during the live show. Each episode is aired live only once, but its around in reruns and DVDs etc forever, so they have two to choose from.

doctorrobert said:

65if2007 said:

Well, why not access both links and watch and see for yourself?

To my mind, there's no doubt that these are two different tapings, the more that I watch each one.

Again, I don't know what it means but this was done at least twice.

Well, they do a full rehearsal, and they could have taped that run as well. I do not think that one has a full studio audience. I will look at them.

[Doc]

totalinformation said:

I think it's SOP for SNL to tape their full dress rehearsal. That way they have tape of extra take if something goes too wrong during the live show. Each episode is aired live only once, but its around in reruns and DVDs etc forever, so they have two to choose from.

doctorrobert said:

Well, they do a full rehearsal, and they could have taped that run as well. I do not think that one has a full studio audience. I will look at them.

I mean it just makes sense in show business. The show has to be aired; you have to always have a back-up ready to use just in case things don't work out right. Audiences are unforgiving. You must look professional. You must stand by with an answer. It's called covering your *ss.