This is an incredibly astute writeup. Sienna Hubert-Ross's Kamala impression is unbelievably ballsy. The way she prances out of the McDonalds or introduces herself as Kamala is so (socially) risky. She's not afraid to put herself out there and take these big risks, and they're hilarious. Meanwhile, a Kamala impression on SNL is safe behind network TV cameras.
Great points! I’m reading after the election but the parodies are an interesting angle to dissect.
To me I always like Maya’s impersonation was fake in the sense that she played a much more coherent and competent version of the real Kamala.
They almost wanted their audiences to see Maya as accurate - less word salads, better speaking, less frequent shrill laughing. It was a way to improve Kamala’s perception almost vs accurately and comedically satirize her.
That makes the impression both less funny and also less truthful, which people can see right through for the most part.
There are selection effects and incentives on the internet side that SNL cannot recreate. The internet comedians get their 15 minutes of fame, and have to capitalize on it - incentivizing big risks. We simply ignore the many failed Trump impersonations on Tik Tok. Meanwhile, SNL doesn’t need to take risks to grt eyeballs, and only get one crack at getting something decent.
Side note - there is a bit if selective remembering here. A guest impression on SNL got Sean Spicer fired!
I don't know, I guess I just expect more from what is supposed to be the cream of the crop. We forget those other TikTok Trump impressions because they're mostly not good or original. They're impressions of someone else's impression.
And to be fair, a senior official getting fired from the Trump White House wasn't exactly a rare occurrence.
Even if not mainstream, Shane Gillis is already an established comedian, and not because of his Trump impression, but this doesn't invalidate your point wrt the Kamala skits.
I guess I mostly think of his Trump impression in the context of the Gilly and Keeves sketches. Self-produced content automatically makes me think "underdog." But you're right, he's certainly one of the biggest comedians working right now.
I did enjoy the article and think it’s mostly correct! The internet will be able to crowdsource a better Trump than the cream of the crop can muster is my takeaway, and I agree we should expect more from the cream of the crop.
I thought the examples here were very good, and I agree SNL's Trump/Kamala impersonators have not been great, but I was curious to know what you thought of Sebastian Stan's Trump in 'The Apprentice'. I'm not sure if it qualifies as 'legacy media', but in any case it was clear he'd studied Trump very closely, and the film also does a great job of showing the gradual evolution of what we now see as the classic Trump mannerisms and rhetoric. (The way he sort of chops with his hands, the use of 'nasty'.) For me, it transcended any Trump impression I'd seen thus far, with the obvious exception of the Trump impression Trump himself does every day, because it showed Trump before he had been fully cast in the role of Trump. 'The Apprentice' is also just a great fucking NYC film? Definitely the biggest cinematic surprise of the year so far. I thought it would be a total wreck.
Thanks for reading! I haven't seen it yet, but will probably watch when it comes on streaming. I like Jeremy Strong a lot, and Roger Stone even said his Roy Cohn was uncanny. I always thought Trump was impossible to impersonate. How do to caricaturize a caricature? Shane Gillis' impression works because it done with a kind of gleeful abandon, whereas everyone else is attempting to moralize. But dropping in on the time before Trump "became" Trump is an interesting workaround. Will give it a shot!
When I saw a chart showing Joe Rogan getting 11 million listeners per (3 hour) episode and Tucker (at the time the most watched cable news show) getting 3 million on a good night, I knew it was over. They’ll all be sold for parts. They are the walking dead.
Great analysis… as a failed screen writer I’d be lying if I said my happiness at the collapse of Hollywood isn’t based in resentment at not breaking in. But I’m not an ascended master, I’m a human so I find it very gratifying. 🤷♂️Folks on the inside were rude and dismissive to me… not like it was that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. But rude and dismissive non the less.
Now, there is no “in” to break into … unless it is breaking into the inner circle of a tiktoker with millions of viewers.
And I am so here for it- as those young kids say on the tok
“An impression should satirize it’s subject, not regurgitate talking points or bolster image”—I think you nailed what’s been awful about SNL since 2015 or so. That SNL sketch you shared sounded like they were trying to do a Sorkin-bit or something.
Thanks for sharing this. I’d listened to Shane Gillis but never seen or heard him do Trump. I watched an opening dialogue he did for SNL but something was off about it… I watched with a friend and we both cringed… maybe we just didn’t agree about something, idk. And Hubert-Ross got me in the gut. Happy to find something I could laugh about targeting Kamala.
Thanks for reading! The SNL monologue can be a tough place for stand-up. I’ve heard that the audience laughter goes up into the rafters and the host thinks they’re doing worse than they really are. His specials are phenomenal if you haven’t seen them.
And I understand the TikTok aversion. Sienna does Instagram Reels too if that’s more palatable haha.
The impression is OK, but there's another woman on TikTok who does a far more accurate one. Uncannily accurate. Of course they kept banning her account so I don't know what it's called now.
This is an incredibly astute writeup. Sienna Hubert-Ross's Kamala impression is unbelievably ballsy. The way she prances out of the McDonalds or introduces herself as Kamala is so (socially) risky. She's not afraid to put herself out there and take these big risks, and they're hilarious. Meanwhile, a Kamala impression on SNL is safe behind network TV cameras.
Yes! There’s nothing exciting about it at all. It’s like she’s intentionally doing an impression that won’t upset the DNC.
Great points! I’m reading after the election but the parodies are an interesting angle to dissect.
To me I always like Maya’s impersonation was fake in the sense that she played a much more coherent and competent version of the real Kamala.
They almost wanted their audiences to see Maya as accurate - less word salads, better speaking, less frequent shrill laughing. It was a way to improve Kamala’s perception almost vs accurately and comedically satirize her.
That makes the impression both less funny and also less truthful, which people can see right through for the most part.
Yes! The worst part of the SNL impression was that it felt like an insult to everyone's intelligence.
There are selection effects and incentives on the internet side that SNL cannot recreate. The internet comedians get their 15 minutes of fame, and have to capitalize on it - incentivizing big risks. We simply ignore the many failed Trump impersonations on Tik Tok. Meanwhile, SNL doesn’t need to take risks to grt eyeballs, and only get one crack at getting something decent.
Side note - there is a bit if selective remembering here. A guest impression on SNL got Sean Spicer fired!
I don't know, I guess I just expect more from what is supposed to be the cream of the crop. We forget those other TikTok Trump impressions because they're mostly not good or original. They're impressions of someone else's impression.
And to be fair, a senior official getting fired from the Trump White House wasn't exactly a rare occurrence.
Even if not mainstream, Shane Gillis is already an established comedian, and not because of his Trump impression, but this doesn't invalidate your point wrt the Kamala skits.
I guess I mostly think of his Trump impression in the context of the Gilly and Keeves sketches. Self-produced content automatically makes me think "underdog." But you're right, he's certainly one of the biggest comedians working right now.
I did enjoy the article and think it’s mostly correct! The internet will be able to crowdsource a better Trump than the cream of the crop can muster is my takeaway, and I agree we should expect more from the cream of the crop.
I thought the examples here were very good, and I agree SNL's Trump/Kamala impersonators have not been great, but I was curious to know what you thought of Sebastian Stan's Trump in 'The Apprentice'. I'm not sure if it qualifies as 'legacy media', but in any case it was clear he'd studied Trump very closely, and the film also does a great job of showing the gradual evolution of what we now see as the classic Trump mannerisms and rhetoric. (The way he sort of chops with his hands, the use of 'nasty'.) For me, it transcended any Trump impression I'd seen thus far, with the obvious exception of the Trump impression Trump himself does every day, because it showed Trump before he had been fully cast in the role of Trump. 'The Apprentice' is also just a great fucking NYC film? Definitely the biggest cinematic surprise of the year so far. I thought it would be a total wreck.
Thanks for reading! I haven't seen it yet, but will probably watch when it comes on streaming. I like Jeremy Strong a lot, and Roger Stone even said his Roy Cohn was uncanny. I always thought Trump was impossible to impersonate. How do to caricaturize a caricature? Shane Gillis' impression works because it done with a kind of gleeful abandon, whereas everyone else is attempting to moralize. But dropping in on the time before Trump "became" Trump is an interesting workaround. Will give it a shot!
When I saw a chart showing Joe Rogan getting 11 million listeners per (3 hour) episode and Tucker (at the time the most watched cable news show) getting 3 million on a good night, I knew it was over. They’ll all be sold for parts. They are the walking dead.
Great analysis… as a failed screen writer I’d be lying if I said my happiness at the collapse of Hollywood isn’t based in resentment at not breaking in. But I’m not an ascended master, I’m a human so I find it very gratifying. 🤷♂️Folks on the inside were rude and dismissive to me… not like it was that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. But rude and dismissive non the less.
Now, there is no “in” to break into … unless it is breaking into the inner circle of a tiktoker with millions of viewers.
And I am so here for it- as those young kids say on the tok
RIP Hollywood
You got to ceck Estee Palti!!!
https://youtube.com/shorts/HzITUeUqXeE?si=keF0DNh5oiMTNV6g
You absolutely nailed it.
Thank you! I think the election results and the left’s post-mortem definitely bore that out.
Thank you for those videos of Sienna Hubert-Ross doing her Harris impersonation! She's nailed it.
It’s just such an obviously great impression. The old adage holds up sometimes, “Get so good that they can’t ignore you.”
“An impression should satirize it’s subject, not regurgitate talking points or bolster image”—I think you nailed what’s been awful about SNL since 2015 or so. That SNL sketch you shared sounded like they were trying to do a Sorkin-bit or something.
Thanks for sharing this. I’d listened to Shane Gillis but never seen or heard him do Trump. I watched an opening dialogue he did for SNL but something was off about it… I watched with a friend and we both cringed… maybe we just didn’t agree about something, idk. And Hubert-Ross got me in the gut. Happy to find something I could laugh about targeting Kamala.
Thanks for reading! The SNL monologue can be a tough place for stand-up. I’ve heard that the audience laughter goes up into the rafters and the host thinks they’re doing worse than they really are. His specials are phenomenal if you haven’t seen them.
And I understand the TikTok aversion. Sienna does Instagram Reels too if that’s more palatable haha.
The impression is OK, but there's another woman on TikTok who does a far more accurate one. Uncannily accurate. Of course they kept banning her account so I don't know what it's called now.