Total Number of Ratings: 20
In Defense Of: Poor Jimmy Fallon
First Published: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:04 PM
Last Saved: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:09 PM
I can remember when Jimmy Fallon was late night's golden boy, however briefly.
There is a cyclical reaction to Saturday Night Live. The show itself stays more or less the same year in and year out (with some notable exceptions, like the year I saw this actual headline in a respected news magazine) but the typing public gets sick of it one year and charmed by it the next. When the cycle was swinging from "Saturday Night Dead" to "Saturday Night Live is Back!" at the turn of the century, one of the elements critics cited most often in its turnaround was Weekend Update as helmed by Fallon and Tina Fey. I seemed to see them in every magazine I opened; in fact, I hadn't watched the show since 1994 until the drumbeat of praise for Fallon and Fey grew too loud to ignore. They hooked me, and I've been back ever since.
At the peak of his SNL career, Jimmy Fallon had a boyish Tiger Beat quality that a lot of people (especially young women) responded to. Of course, some of those responses (especially among young men) were wish-punches to the face, and as time went on he developed a knack for cracking himself up during live sketches that even had me and Tracy Morgan wanting to wait for him by the stage door with a sock full of quarters. For some reason, though, even as I was trying to will his snickering sidekick Horatio Sanz out of public life using only the power of my mind, I could never bring myself to dislike Jimmy Fallon.
A lot of other people didn't have that problem. In the time since he's launched his new late night show, I've seen a lot of people write it off with little more than a "SUCKS" online; unfortunately, I assure you that about 85% of those people decided that they were going to hate Late Night With Jimmy Fallon back in about October 2002. He's been written off. We all do it from time to time. I've been doing it to Jay Leno for about fifteen years.
It's too bad about the Fallon haters, because he's got himself a good thing going in late night right now. I'm not saying it's a perfect show; I'm not saying it's a better show than Craig Ferguson's, for the same reasons I wouldn't compare a high school freshman to a college senior in any category; but it is a solid, funny starter show, and I assure you it is a damn sight better than anything Conan O'Brien was doing at this point in his late night career. I never watch the show and question how Jimmy Fallon got on television, and when Fallon continues to improve and grow into the role like Conan did it won't take me by surprise.
Much like when I heard Janeane Garofalo was becoming a talk radio host, Fallon's hiring was an idea I was embarrassed had never occurred to me. He has just the right amount of enthusiasm and excitement for the role. I was stunned to learn he's older than I am; he has an almost puppylike energy and eagerness that makes him come across like he's about fourteen and a half. He is the perfect surrogate for his target audience, which is presumably young people enjoying being alive; he acts just like they would if they got to meet people they were fans of. The key to any good Jimmy Fallon impression rests heavily on the delivery of the phrase "so awesome"; you have to sound just joyful enough and repeat it just the right number of times when people answer your questions. Guests come on his show, and half the time he seems so sincerely delighted to see them he can't stop smiling. Of course, when he really is a superfan of a guest such as the recent Chevy Chase, the program begins to seriously resemble those old "Chris Farley Show" sketches on SNL. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; I could use a little more sincerity, excitement, and enthusiasm in my life. Does it all have to be Letterman, feigning interest in yet another movie clip and fighting the urge to openly mock the guests?
Fallon uses the show to drag everyone into his antics, from the audience to the guests, using some bits on the technological cutting edge and others straight out of the fifties. No other talk show I can remember has been so much about activity and participation. Fallon's is the show on which the guests most blatantly plug their product (partly due to the host's awkwardness when seguing into his set-up questions) but it is also the show where they are most likely to have to sing for their supper. More often than not, the first guest of the night is put through some kind of battle of wits or Double Dare physical challenge. Queen Latifah has been challenged to a scooter race; Amy Poehler has had to race the host around the studio on foot while pushing a stroller with a fake baby in it. Christopher Meloni, for reasons still unclear to me, had to shoot random objects (football, telephone, chocolate shake, mannequin head) through a basketball hoop. And of course, he tried to kill Betty White with Beer Pong.
Those are the invited guests. You should see what he puts the audience through.
Fallon doesn't just toy with his viewers; he involves them in the show at an unprecedented level in an effort to make it theirs too. He takes viewer questions via Twitter and has been known to talk to viewers via Skype on the air. He has a computer (which brand isn't important) built right into his desk just in case it comes in handy and/or a guest is so boring he'd rather check his mail. Do a Youtube search sometime for "Jimmy Fallon Dance Challenge" to see the lengths people will go to in order to get on television.
Poor Jimmy Fallon made some early missteps and rubbed a certain segment of the audience the wrong way. That doesn't change the fact that he's a solid impressionist, a fairly talented physical comedian who isn't afraid to topple over a desk, and a generally charming host. I think this kid's got potential; don't write him off just yet.
I just watched his show for the 1st time, mostly due to your and Josh's defense of him on the podcast (and Mastodon was playing) and I didn't hate it. You guys were right about his somewhat endearing qualities, but he without a doubt needs to break format and do away with the monologue.
Never was a fan of his--I just never remember laughing at his material. It's not even a slight to his show, since I've never found the stuff on late-night TV all that funny either.
I enjoy Fallon's show (other than the monologue) and also find Ferguson enjoyable. As a child of the 80's/early 90's, I find he Saved By the Bell reunion attempt enjoyable, as well.
What I don't understand is what happened to Conan? A few years ago I really enjoyed his show, but it has seemed rather flat lately (Twitter Tracker, for example). I think it needs more Andy. Conan has really only been funny when he is off the set.
i watch Fallon nightly in australia, but here it is a whole lot easier because Leno, O'Brien, Fallon, Kimmel and Letterman are all on the same channel. But no ferguson so i do miss out on some. But i like Fallon i know he has room to grow. (just watch that first episode again) And I love how he gets the audience involved. You're doing a fine job Fallon.
I like Jimmy Fallon much more as a talk show host then as an actor/sketch performer. I just wish he had a little more gravitas on his show. Just own it a little more. If that makes any sense. There is now doubt that Letterman, Leno and Conan ARE the head haunchos in charge even if they are playing the part of a schlub/wise ass. I just want Fallon to own it more.
What I like about Fallon is that, above all else, he just looks psyched to be hosting Late Night. He clearly loves his job, and he clearly wants to do everything he can to make it great. It's endearing, and I appreciate that.
The highlights of the show, races/dances/wacky games with guests, have been done by Danza and Ellen. Kimmel used to let his guests drink at a bar on set, before it was shut down. Snoop, high as a kite, didn't help matters. His embrace of technology is very good and will serve him well.
Energy and enthusiasm can only take you so far in comedy. Any basic comedian knows the rule is: FUNNIER, FASTER, LOUDER. Fallon has some of that.
As an SNL performer, he routinely broke sketches by laughing. He often does this. His greatest strength cited is his weakness. If you're always giddy, too enthusiastic, you might get overwhelmed with the fits of the giggles. This is just probably the biggest reason for disliking him, petty yet honest to be sure.
The strongest argument made in the article is that it's too early to judge him as a host, especially compared to others. If you had done that with Conan, Kimmel, and Letterman then they would also be judged as poor hosts. His enthusiasm to try anything is a good sign. He surrounded himself with old SNL friends (directors, writers, etc.). The question is if they can find what works and stop doing what fails. More, it depends how quickly they can do that.
Conan did inspired bits in the earlier days that were wacky and strange. He had a cavalier "I might get fired or cancelled, so I'm going to do what amuses me" attitude that's needed. Letterman has sustained that. Fallon seems to be doing a "Do you like this? No. What about this?" Sometimes it comes off as desperately trying to please. What made so many hosts strong is a cavalier attitude of doing the opposite. You build an audience, because you're doing material you find funny.
This is why there are people who like Dave and hate Conan, or like Leno but hate Ferguson. They each have a distinct tone and style. They don't want to cater, it's what endears them to their rabid fans. Fallon seems the opposite.
I was a HUGE fan of Fallon's when he was on SNL. Whenever he busted up in a sketch it was always my favorite moment of any episode. I miss that feeling that any sketch could fall apart at any moment or that these guys were trying to bust each other up. I always laughed harder when they did.
I don't watch LATE NIGHT WITH JIMMY FALLON, though. I'm a CRAIG FERGUSON guy. It's not only the best talk show on TV, but one of the best shows, period.
I can see the appeal, but it remains a personal pet peeve. My feeling is, "How about you do the sketch, and WE laugh at it if it's funny?" (Lorne Michaels used to have this same pet peeve, by the way. When the show started, cracking each other up mid-sketch was known at the show as "that Carol Burnett bullshit." I don't know when that changed; I think Lorne has decided he's old, and "the kids writing the show know what the kids watching the show like, shrug.")
I thought it was a riot the first couple of times it happened (see the first "Debbie Downer" sketch guest starring Lindsay Lohan) but after a while it seemed like they would knowingly put Fallon and Sanz in weak material and hope their giggle fits would do the heavy lifting.
Much of this, of course, is sheer imagination and speculation on my part after years of exposure.
I love Craig Ferguson. He's the Comedian's Comedian. His Cold opens (puppet or no) are amazing, his monologues are some of the best, well structured pieces of comedic writing I have found this side of comedy clubs. His sketches are strong. And his conversations are not simply venues for product placement. Craig's show is about Craig, but he also is so warm, self-deprecating and inviting that it never comes across as egoitistical. I watch him 4-5 nights a week.
However, I reject the argument needs to be mutually exclusive anymore. (I realize you weren't making this argument, Conor, but your Ferguson praise provided a springboard to the forthcoming soapbox. I hope you don't mind.)
Fans are uploading Late Night shows to Youtube at a shocking rate. And for the most part, these uploads fly under the radar of Corporations or the Youtube Copyright Police. NBC and ABC offer full programming online. I consume Letterman, Conan, Fallon, Handler, and Kimmel fairly reguarly. (If I had a DVR, these are the shows that would be first on the que). Late Night Comedy is something I have always loved. It was my first exposure to television My Dad used to Watch Letterman with me when I couldn't sleep at night, so it always retained some of its illicit appeal) I firmly believe that there is a fun bit that can be gleaned from anyone involved in Late Night (or now Primetime) Comedy, even if it's only on a craft level.) For this reason, I will watch the George Lopez Show TBS and the Monique Show on BET
Variety is awesome.
Bravo. I think Jimmy Fallon's first year has been a true learning experience. With Conan, they lifted the same Leno/Carson formula and were able to pull it off. However, Lightning has a limited shelf life. Sure. the first two weeks had some torturously long monologues. And picking Robert DeNiro as his first guest was a recipe for disaster on the first night, but something about it all worked for me. I enjoyed it those few weeks, and I think it's always gotten better. It's really nice to see someone actually EXCITED to see/meet his guests and someone who seems genuinely interested in what they're saying.
Great article Jim.
this probably makes no sense, but when i think of "the annoying things that jimmy fallon does" what comes to mind is dane cook. i don't think they have that much in common, so maybe it's just the "comic who thinks he's very funny" part?
I think there is an important difference. Jimmy Fallon is someone who has been known to laugh at his own jokes, while Dane Cook is someone I have never heard tell a joke. I think a transcript would prove Cook just says things with joke inflections while gesticulating.
I have a Dan Cook Theory. In your life, you have friends or relatives or coworkers to whom people say, "You're funny! You should be a comedian." If these people took the stage at a comedy club, they would be eaten alive, raw and screaming. They are not Actual Funny or Comedian Funny. They are Dorm Room Funny. They are Friend Funny.
In that same way, Dane Cook is not Actual Funny, but through the ingenious use of social networking and MySpace he managed to make millions of people feel like they were his friends. To all of his fans, he now feels like a guy they know. All he ever has to be is Friend Funny now, and he can do no wrong.
I think I like your Dane Cook Theory Better than your Article. And I like your article a great. Deal. Game. Set. Match.
1. All comics think they are very funny. Otherwise they wouldn't be funny.
2. There was a time when Dane Cook was funny a long long time ago. He was doing a Seinfeld observational humor meets college boy schtick that worked very well. Then he got famous and stopped writing jokes.
Well argued and a great read, Jim.
I must admit that I actually haven't seen an episode of Fallon's show. But, nor have I seen Ferguson's show. Late late night TV is a young man's game and I feel I passed that mark a while ago. If only I had a DVR.
No one else may recall this, but there was a brief period in the early 2000s where Comedy Central repeated the previous night's LATE NIGHT WITH CONAN O'BRIAN at 7PM the next day. It allowed us folks who went to bed at a good hour to watch Conan, with the topicality of the episode being off only slightly. I wish this was still happening, as I'd enjoy watching the occasional Fallon episode. Guess the ratings must have really stunk, which is why this experiment didn't last long.
Well written article, I enjoyed reading it.
But....I just can't agree with this. From the moment Fallon started on SNL to today he just isn't funny to me. All he does is read cue-cards and laugh at his own material. Seriously, he's about ten to fifteen years into his career and he's STILL laughing when trying to do a punchline. He's like Andy Samberg, except that the latter can actually write good material from time to time.
Craig Ferguson blows him out of the water for me with that timeslot. There is no way I will ever watch Fallon....except that I DVR'd the episode with the Pythons. Seriously, how the fuck did he get the living members of Monty Python? Not even Conan or Letterman could get them. So I'm just watching that episode for the Pythons and nothing else. My opinions on Fallon still stand.
Try to watch one episode with audience participation. Those are always fun. Or watch Friday's show, he has the "Thank you note" segment just like Leno's Headlines. He does it weekly.
Say what you want about Fallon his impressions are pretty damn good which Samberg (with exception of Mark Whalberg) hasn't really been that strong in.
@TimmyWood: Anyone can do impressions, either bad or good. I'm not an uber fan of Samberg but in defense for him (see what I did there?) he has so much more talent for comedy. He has interesting ideas and for the most part, they get a laugh. Fallon can't even do a fricken straight man role without cracking up. As Peter Griffin once said: "Who the hell do you think you are, Carol Burnett!?"
The sentence "anyone can do impressions bad or good" makes no sense. I was just proving how Fallon got on SNL and one of the reasons he was so popular through out the show.
You nailed everything that I think are the reasons why Jimmy Fallon is good for Late Night. That's why when I tivo my talk shows, I watch him before I watch Conan now. Hope if I have time, I will attend one of his shows. The audience participation part looks so much fun. Late Night Jimmy is staying.
How could I forget the filmed bits?? The "Hills" parody "7th Floor West":
http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/7th-floor-west/
"Head Swap," the bit that looks like it's going to be a lame Conan "If They Mated" bit before veering off into a wildly different direction:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/79354/late-night-with-jimmy-fallon-head-swap-vol-2
Those never fail to delight me.
Every time someone mocks Jimmy, I will link to Zack Morris interview, and the Monty Python Show. No sane person can refute those on any level. Fallon id good for late night, he's good for comedy and he's good for America, dammit. I think there is a reason the Pythons ended up on his show first. He's goofball quality is perhaps the purest reflection of their influence. Maybe not the best, but the purest.
This is a Late Night Show for People who don't like Late Night shows. That's commendable.
He's keenly aware of his strengths, namely The Roots, audience participation, sketches, enthusiasm, improv and self deprecation.
Well-defended! I hadn't seen the show until a few days ago, because it's been ages since I've paid attention to a talk show host who wasn't Jon Stewart. But I caught the Monty Python appearance and honestly, I thought his ingenuousness worked really well for them to play against; sure, he got upstaged, but I don't know who WOULDN'T have been upstaged, and what I liked was that he knew he was being upstaged and didn't mind. He went with it.
Of course, I made the mistake of going online and the first thing I saw was the EW critic being snide. I really think that failing to enjoy that segment is the definition of hating fun.
Anyway, probably not the most representative introduction, but I'd give him another chance.
Respond
Fallon's show is terrible. The comedy is horrible, and he's an Arsenio-like slobbering puppy-dog to all his guests.