Andy Kaufman is alive

It could be metaphysical. Andy is alive in ALL OF US.


Wow. Tanya Roberts. I can't believe this is "PG"!
 
I never saw the series "Taxi", never saw "Man In The Moon" (the promos looked stupid enough to start with), never saw any old SNL sketches, the REM song didn't ring any bells, didn't see the name in the newspapers or on the TV news...

Looks like I've not missed anything much, from what you all have told me.

Ho hum.
 
No, Zep, he was great, actually.

I find it amusing that Mr. Manifesto gets his digs on Kaufman despite never having seen his work.

Idiot.
 
LFTKBS said:
No, Zep, he was great, actually.

I find it amusing that Mr. Manifesto gets his digs on Kaufman despite never having seen his work.

Idiot.
I agree, and Andy would love the fact that he is still causing controversy.
 
American said:
It could be metaphysical. Andy is alive in ALL OF US.

I really hate it when I hear people refer to their heroes by their first name. It has even spread to the world of psychics: John Edward's fan(atics) refer to him as "John".

vomit-smiley-001.gif
 
LFTKBS said:
No, Zep, he was great, actually.

I find it amusing that Mr. Manifesto gets his digs on Kaufman despite never having seen his work.

Idiot.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto, which he is forced to post again for the slower members of the politics forum
No, I don't hate him. Just his ever-growing legion of drooling fans. Would be quite interested to see some of his routines to see for myself what he was like.

If anyone didn't understand it this time around, feel free to ask for clarification from me before shooting off mouths.
 
Sniping aside, I've spent an hour or so looking up some stuff about Andy Kaufman, and reading. Granted that's hardly anywhere near enough time to really learn to appreciate any performer, but my first impressions are that he was little more than a self-serving git whom some people thought was "a great comedian" solely because he acted weird.

So far, I'm not impressed, and losing interest rapidly...
 
Zep said:
Sniping aside, I've spent an hour or so looking up some stuff about Andy Kaufman, and reading. Granted that's hardly anywhere near enough time to really learn to appreciate any performer, but my first impressions are that he was little more than a self-serving git whom some people thought was "a great comedian" solely because he acted weird.

So far, I'm not impressed, and losing interest rapidly...

That's cool, that was the impression he gave a lot of people. Some people just don't 'get it'. And I'm hardly likely to agree with someone who thinks that Home Improvement was one of the great sitcoms :p :D

But seriously, personally, there was some of his stuff I really liked, but there was lots of stuff I just didn't 'get'.

Someone above said he was 'love/hate' for fans, and it seems there was many 'hates', and quite a few 'loves'. I was somewhere in the middle, some of it I loved, certainly. In the end I think he was quite a bit of a 'self-serving git', but he was also someone that quite a few people thought was a great comedian.

Some people think Jackson Polack is just a wanker who threw paint onto canvas any old way. I hope they remember that other people thought he was a genius.

To each his own :)

Adam
 
slimshady2357 said:


That's cool, that was the impression he gave a lot of people. Some people just don't 'get it'. And I'm hardly likely to agree with someone who thinks that Home Improvement was one of the great sitcoms :p :D

But seriously, personally, there was some of his stuff I really liked, but there was lots of stuff I just didn't 'get'.

Someone above said he was 'love/hate' for fans, and it seems there was many 'hates', and quite a few 'loves'. I was somewhere in the middle, some of it I loved, certainly. In the end I think he was quite a bit of a 'self-serving git', but he was also someone that quite a few people thought was a great comedian.

Some people think Jackson Polack is just a wanker who threw paint onto canvas any old way. I hope they remember that other people thought he was a genius.

To each his own :)

Adam
Oh, har har! I never said it was "great", I just said it made me laugh! :D (Actually, it was crap, but funny crap)

As to Kaufman, I'm sure you are right. As I said, I've had 60 minutes Googlestudy of him versus people who have had years of exposure, even first-hand. I can hardly claim any authority on that basis! I was just trying to get a feel for the man's work...

FWIW, having appreciated art for decades, I like Pollacks' work, in the main.
 
I heard Kaufman was sighted outside of the Viper Room having the crap kicked out of him by Bill Hicks.
 
LFTKBS said:
No, Zep, he was great, actually.

I find it amusing that Mr. Manifesto gets his digs on Kaufman despite never having seen his work.

Idiot.

I've seen a great deal of it, and I have to agree with manifesto. I thought he was a lousy entertainer. Before you crawl up my butt for speaking ill of the dead, let me explain.

To be fair, I think Kaufman's humor is one of those things you either get or you don't. There are no casual Kaufman fans. I guess he was like Monty Python - you either think they was the funniest troupe ever, or the world's biggest waste of time. I find those lines are often drawn by gender, btw. What's the line for Kaufman? No idea. But I know I'm on the wrong side of it.
 
Friggin' Zmuda... pulling his grave robbing trick again.

The guy is Andy Kaufman's Yoko Ono. Another ghoul feeding on the corpse of long-dead(and staying that way) celebrity.

Did anyone happen to see the pathetic televised "seance" that Zmuda participated in a while back? Some "psychic medium" clown pretended to channel Andy Kaufmann, while Zmuda ooohed, and aaahed like the talentless hack parasite that he is.

puke.gif
 
Zep said:
Sniping aside, I've spent an hour or so looking up some stuff about Andy Kaufman, and reading. Granted that's hardly anywhere near enough time to really learn to appreciate any performer, but my first impressions are that he was little more than a self-serving git whom some people thought was "a great comedian" solely because he acted weird.

So far, I'm not impressed, and losing interest rapidly...

If you don't understand the brilliance of a performer who would dress up in a (very good) disguise and be his OWN opening act, then I guess you don't get what people liked about it.

Let me add also...that in that disguise (as the lounge singer Tony Clifton)...he would insult his own audience as well. Then later, after everyone figured out the joke, he had a friend of his put on the diguise and he came out while "Tony Clifton" was on stage, completely screwing with everyone's head.
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Now subject to the usual blind hero-worship that some artists enjoy when they die.

Andy Kaufman is a prime example of my theory that certain celebreties fame stems not from any particular talent, but the fact that they had the good sense to die at just the right time in their careers where they will be immortalized as geniuses.

Kurt Cobain is another example.
 
I saw the seance Zmuda was a part of. It was icky. (In the other part of the show they contacted Princess Diana as I recall.) Zmuda has some history as a magician and that makes me think he's more knowledgeable about scams, seances included, so it must be that he knew what the real deal was at the seance.

I liked some of Andy Kaufman's comedy and I didn't like other parts of it. I think comedy should be judged on whether it's funny and not on whether it's different. I think a point came where some people like Kaufman's stuff simply because it was different and without regard to whether it was any good.

I didn't like the wrestling schtick. And I never even heard about the Tony Clifton stuff until long after he was dead.

I heard that he didn't like doing Taxi because he thought it was beneath him and too mainstream and all that, but it was funny and twenty years later it still is funny and as far as I'm concerned that's what count. I don't think some of his other stuff (especially his later stuff) has aged very well (but then again, I didn't like it that much when it first came out so perhaps that's why I like it even less now).
 
Number Six said:
I liked some of Andy Kaufman's comedy and I didn't like other parts of it. I think comedy should be judged on whether it's funny and not on whether it's different. I think a point came where some people like Kaufman's stuff simply because it was different and without regard to whether it was any good.

I didn't like the wrestling schtick. And I never even heard about the Tony Clifton stuff until long after he was dead.

I heard that he didn't like doing Taxi because he thought it was beneath him and too mainstream and all that, but it was funny and twenty years later it still is funny and as far as I'm concerned that's what count. I don't think some of his other stuff (especially his later stuff) has aged very well (but then again, I didn't like it that much when it first came out so perhaps that's why I like it even less now).


All of that is best explained by the fact that he never intended to be a comedian. Any laughter or entertainment value was incidental.

That's why I call him the very first Troll, before trolling was invented.
 
I'm sorry, but you've just GOT to love a guy who takes his entire Carnegie Hall audience out for milk and cookies!

The thing about Kaufman was, he wanted a genuine reaction. If you go into a comedy club, you're half expecting to laugh already, so in Kaufman's mind it's not so genuine since the audience is already meeting you halfway. So, what did Kaufman do? He played the part of a shy, not-very-funny-but-likeable stand-up comic. He blew his jokes, but was so sweet about it that the audience just fell in love with him. Then Zmuda (planted in the audience) started hecking him and became so much of an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that he had Kaufman running off the stage in tears. The audience adored Kaufman, hated the heckler, and neither reaction was what the audience was prepared to have. So it was genuine. Love, hate, laughter, pity, whatever—Kaufman wanted to evoke sincere reactions that came from the heart. No performer before or since has ever come close.
 
To me, the most interesting thing about Kaufman was the fact that, while he was out there to entertain, it wasn't the audience he was entertaining. He was out there, night after night, doing something he found funny. If the audience laughed, or were even marginally entgertained, that was great, but that wasn't his point.

I remember a story of Kaufman having done a college campus show. Campus securiity was his ride and in the car, he asked the driver to fiind him a party to go to. As the driver came up with one, Kaufman took the guys hadncuffs and cuffed himself to the driver. The driver then (for reasons I can't recall off the top of my head) wound up having to go to the party with him, cuffed to him the whole time. Kaufman found it hysterical, which is why he diid it.
 
shanek said:
The thing about Kaufman was, he wanted a genuine reaction. If you go into a comedy club, you're half expecting to laugh already, so in Kaufman's mind it's not so genuine since the audience is already meeting you halfway. So, what did Kaufman do? He played the part of a shy, not-very-funny-but-likeable stand-up comic. He blew his jokes, but was so sweet about it that the audience just fell in love with him. Then Zmuda (planted in the audience) started hecking him and became so much of an a**hole that he had Kaufman running off the stage in tears. The audience adored Kaufman, hated the heckler, and neither reaction was what the audience was prepared to have. So it was genuine. Love, hate, laughter, pity, whatever—Kaufman wanted to evoke sincere reactions that came from the heart. No performer before or since has ever come close.

How can a staged incident provoke genuine reaction? He fooled his audience to behave like he wanted. How genuine is that?
 

Back
Top Bottom