I think one thing that happens is that Kramer sort of inherits the general funnyness of the show in people’s minds. They remember the show being funny, and he’s the standout character. One thing about Seinfeld is that a lot of the humour isn’t really coming from any specific character. They’re all involved in some situation that’s funny, or there’s a buildup over an entire episode (like the golf ball in the blow hole).
People think about Seinfeld, it’s a funny show, so the favourite character “must be” really funny.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus was the best actor on that show and it’s not surprising at all that she was the one to break “the Seinfeld curse” (if we don’t count Jerry Stiller’s supporting role on “King of Queens” - which we shouldn’t).
Kramer was the “biggest” of the show’s regular characters so it’s not surprising that he got a big reaction right off the bat. It’s a good thing Seinfeld himself was one of the writers and later a producer, or Kramer probably would have taken over the show a la Urkel and J.J. I sometimes find myself responding less positively to him in reruns than I did originally.
One of my favorite moments from the series is the button at the end of the backward episode. The main plot involved a wedding in India, with pieces of the story revealed in reverse chronological order. It ended with Jerry moving into his apartment, meeting his apparently normal neighbor, and inviting him to come over and borrow stuff any time he felt like it.
He had dozens of great lines. Which is a tribute to Larry David and the writers, as well as to Michael Richards’ delivery. Kramer as A. G. Pennypacker, wealthy industrialist, was gut-busting.
If you listen to the commentary from the other actors on the DVDs, they consistently point to Richards as being by far the funniest of the group. Jason Alexander and JLD point out scenes where they (and especially Seinfeld) had to look away from the camera and stifle their laughter while watching Richards. If those three found Kramer funny, Richards must have been doing something right.
“Look at me, Jerry! I’m hideous!” I think Seinfeld had to reshoot that scene a hundred times before he could keep a straight face.
Mr. Bean? No. I get a strong sense of Andy Kaufmann from that. Richards used to be able to throw himself completely into a character and walk around in its skin - from Battle Boy to Stanley Spadowsky to Kramer.
However, George Costanza was the best character on Seinfeld, far and away. Just the most pathetic, dispicable and petty person to grace the TV screen.
Have you ever seen anyone try to do an imitation of Kramer. Even the best impressionists in the world can’t pull it off. And I’ve seen them try.
There was something almost magical about the Richards played that character. As several people here have stated he was genius when it came to slapstick. That coupled with the writing on Seinfeld equaled comedy gold. It’s shame he never found any other project to match his talents.
You know, I wanted to agree with the premise of this thread, but it just reminded me of how great the Kramer character is. Especially the “They kept ringing the bell.” line.
Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? He’s good at one, narrow thing, and was well cast for it in Seinfeld. But he can’t do anything but that - he’s completely one note. Once you’ve seen him as Kramer, you’ve seen everything he can do. That doesn’t make him a genius, it just makes him lucky to have been at the right place at the right time to get that particular job.
Um, I really have to take umbrage at this statement. (Don’t worry, I’ll leave plenty of umbrage for the rest of you. )
If you can do something, anything, at that high a level, you’re a genius. Period. One note or not, most people will never, ever, ever do that one note as well, and therefore, you are especially talented.
I mean, all Michael Phelps can do is swim fast. What a loser!
