Okay, poor word choice, I’ll rephrase: “It’s counter to what entertaining is all about.”
Kaufman was, supposedly, an entertainer. His job was to entertain others. He sought only to entertain himself.
I believe that Kaufmann was never trying to amuse his audience - as so much as he was trying to amuse himself.
But the fact that he is still remembered and discussed today, makes him a success in my view. Not necessarily funny, but a success.
Who understood Lenny Bruce back in the 60’s?
Who has ever “gotten” the comedic style of “Gallagher”?
Wanna talk about bad comics? How 'bout:
Jimmy Walker, Paul Reiser, David Brenner, Nipsy Russell, any cast member of the “Police Academy” movies…this list is endless.
What made Andy notable, is that he was different. Very different.
I’m not going to comment about how funny Kaufman was (I kinda liked him–Vic Ferrari), but I like Robin William’s quote from one of those bio’s on cable: “when you looked into his eyes, you knew nobody was home.” That, coming from a guy like Williams, makes you wonder how far out Andy was.
Well all I know about Andy Kaufman is seeing him on Taxi re-runs. I think the episodes where he had multiple personalities (switching back and forth between the shy Latvian and the lady-killer) were pretty funny.
I’ve read some articles about him recently, and I could see why some of his colleagues would consider him to be a “genius”. He did things that no one else did, and “pushed the envelope”. Whether or not is funny is justifiably up to debate, but someone in the business would respect a fellow performer who isn’t trying to follow trends, instead pushing the craft in new directions.
I read somewhere that he sang the whole “100 bottles of beer on the wall” song on television. To me, that sounds pretty funny.
La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry
Nobody’s mentioned the great bit where Andy’s fronting 2 rasta types and accompanying himself on the drum, and he begins to yodel.
Now that was funny. And he was the best Elvis impersonator ever.
Andy Kauffman was different. I didn’t always find everything he did to be funny, but when he was good, he was excellent. You never knew whether he would be particularly funny in any performance, but you (or at least I) would watch in the hopes that he’d be good. It was almost like gambling to watch him work. You’d watch a lot of drek just waiting for the gold. I suppose that for him, putting on his act was like gambling as well, never knowing how the audience would react. I think he was as addicted to what he did as any gambler.
As far as his sanity was concerned, it’s pretty easy to see with hindsight that he was beyond the pale, but when he was alive I think many people just thought he was such a genius that they couldn’t tell the madness from the jokes. Andy was strange and entertaining and insulting, and scary. When it all came together the right way, it was great. It didn’t always come together. It’s too bad no-one recognized he needed help far enough in advance to do anything but say “I always knew he was crazy.”
–Baloo
It’s more important to understand than it is to agree.
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm
As Gallagher was referred to twice, I will say that he and Andy were quite different. I say G’s audiences do not want him to come up with anything new or provide anything too earthshaking (besides the sledge itself.) I think Gallagher purposely dumbs down his act for his crowd.
I agree with the posters who see Andy as not caring what audiences or those around him thought of him or else he didn’t care what type of strong reaction he got, as long as it was strong. [I personally enjoyed him.]
Some of us are capitalists. Andy made money at what he did so I contend that that in itself means he was successful. Gallagher, too, for that matter.
Andy’s best role was as ‘Latka’ in Taxi. Otherwise, in my own opinion, he was an egotistical, not particularly funny, attention getting, idiot. With all of the other past, great comics out there, I don’t figure he rates a biographical movie being made about him.
I was not all that pleased with Sam Kennison either, but I did enjoy some of his work, especially when he appeared in films. I do think it was sad the way he died, though.
Mark
“Think of it as Evolution in action.”
I think one part of being able to appreciate Andy is the ability to not be baited in to his annoyances. The TV commercial for Man on the Moon is a good example. He’s telling the engineer to screw with the vertical hold and the same thing is happening with the commercial. I find that supremely annoying - particularly since TVs don’t have vertical hold controls anymore - but I refused to get pulled in and still manage to laugh about it.
A perfect example of the “Emperors New Clothes” if you asked me.
-Frankie
I’m not a shrimp, I’m a King Prawn.
-Pepe the Prawn
[[If you don’t get Andy, then he’s making fun of YOU and it IS funny.]] Babar
Not quite, but I would say that, much like “Zippy,” if you don’t get it, the joke’s probably on you.
It irks me when people say things like “You’re not intelligent enough to get the humor of Andy Kauffman.” or “If you don’t get it, the joke’s on you.” People, there is nothing sophisticated or intelligent about the humor of Andy Kauffman. The man ran around trying to piss off or disturb as many people as possible. He was kind of like that kid you knew in grade school who would eat anything just for the attention and reaction it would get. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. If the man makes you laugh, more power to you. Just don’t try and say that I’m some kind of moron because I don’t think it’s funny.]] Chief Crunch
Sorry you didn’t like to hear that, Chief, but while not liking Andy’s stuff doesn’t make one a moron, saying that his humor wasn’t intelligent and that he was just out for shock value and ticking people off is, at the very least, ignorant.
Andy kept people off balance – he was a true performance artist, and most of the time he was fucking hilarious.
With respect, Big Iron, says you. He may have been a performance artist but he was light-years away from “fucking hilarious.” Considering that humor, like art, is in the eye of the beholder, it’s pretty high-handed of you to declare that people disagreeing with your assessment are “ignorant.” I don’t pretend to know what his motivations were, but I’ll be damned if I’ll agree with an assessment that his variety of hit-or-miss, pointless interaction with audiences was “intelligent.” It was obnoxious, boring, and if ever funny, then only by mere coincidence.
I recognize that you disagree with this. The difference, of course, is that I do not attribute your disagreement to some lack of intelligence on your part.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
[[With respect, Big Iron, says you. He may have been a performance artist but he was light-years away from “fucking hilarious.” ]]
That’s obviously an opinion on which we sharply depart.
[[Considering that humor, like art, is in the eye of the beholder, it’s pretty high-handed of you to declare that people disagreeing with your assessment are “ignorant.” ]]
To find it not your cup of tea is not ignorant – to declare that it is unintelligent and merely shock value, etc., is ignorant.
[[I don’t pretend to know what his motivations were, but I’ll be damned if I’ll agree with an assessment that his variety of hit-or-miss, pointless interaction with audiences was “intelligent.” ]]
You’re free to be wrong.
[[It was obnoxious, boring, and if ever funny, then only by mere coincidence.
I recognize that you disagree with this. The difference, of course, is that I do not attribute your disagreement to some lack of intelligence on your part.]]
How could you?
I read most of these and PunditLIsa has the best analysis. It’s entertainment, take it or leave it.
Could one of those people who “got” Andy Kauffman’s humor please explain what it was that we were supposed to get? Or are you claiming that there’s something there that can’t be explained at all? Is it then supposed to be something like a mystical experience?
I would go along with the famous quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein: “What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.” If there’s something about his humor that simply can’t be explained, this thread should just end now.
People have said that the lack of ability of those who don’t get Andy Kauffman isn’t a lack of intelligence. Actually, if that was all that it was, it wouldn’t be such a problem. After all, a lack of intelligence doesn’t mean that you can’t understand something. It means that it takes longer, sometimes much longer, to understand it. Sometimes it takes so much longer that it’s not worth trying, since we all have only a finite amount of time. What some of you people are claiming about Andy Kauffman is that we will never get it.
The examples that various posters have given of other comedians that people didn’t get don’t seem to me to be parallel. smug says that “Who understood Lenny Bruce back in the 60’s?”. Actually, most of Lenny Bruce’s routines were in fairly clean language and were generally considered funny, both now and then. Some of his routines had language in them that was considered pretty obscene back then, but no one then thought that they weren’t funny, just that they were obscene and that that fact alone was enough to condemn them. Also, some of his late routines were almost dissertations about obscene language and the attempts of police to stop him from using it. Those routines might not be considered funny to some people because they seemed a bit dry and scholarly.
The comparisons with various bad comics doesn’t seem to me to be parallel either. About most of those I find merely that they work on too much of a childish, obvious level to be interesting for very long. I can imagine finding them funny, and I think I did find them or someone like them funny at one time, but I don’t anymore.
My reactions to Andy Kauffman were that I alternated between finding him funny (although I suppose it was his most ordinary stuff that I found funny), finding him offensive, and finding him simply inexplicable.
Wendell:
I would submit it is impossible to explain why something is funny. “Funny” is inexplicable and seems to occur on an emotional level when the unusual, unexpected or surprisingly revealing happens. “Funny” is not an objective condition that can be defined, quantified or classified. “Funny” is in the eye of the beholder.
Explain why something is funny? Can’t be done. Either something strikes one as funny or it don’t (which rather invalidates my multiple responses on this thread, but, so be it). I found Andy consistently funny, clever and unique. I can think of few comics who affect me similarly (Heywood Banks comes to mind).
MaxTorque:
Saying that what Andy did “was counter to what entertainment is all about,” doesn’t really help. What is entertainment all about? What makes Shindler’s List, The Texas Chainsaw Massacres, Blazing Saddles and Terms of Endearment all entertainment?
Are you suggesting that all entertainment should be designed to pander to the whims of the probable audience? I don’t buy the suggestion that Andy did what he did to entertain himself rather than his audience, but even if that is true – so what. I have serious questions about the quality of any piece of entertainment which does not first entertain its creator.
Plunging like stones from a slingshot on Mars.
I never ‘got’ Kaufman either; I think Carol Kane did pretty good opposite his Latka, though. She was also superb as Miracle Max’s (Billy Crystal)wife in “The Princess Bride”; now THERE in that scene is comedy!
Hey Zette,
Hmmmm…Someone who wants us to buy into his put-ons? Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton!
I can question your intelligence, BIG IRON, based on your total failure to grasp this single, simple point: Because humor, like art, is in the eye of the beholder, neither you or anyone are qualified to tell anyone else that their opinion is “wrong” because it doesn’t jibe with yours. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer to the question “is this funny?” Although, I can’t resist pointing out that if “funny” were decided by majority vote – which of course it is not – the answer to the question “was Andy Kauffman funny?”, based solely on this thread, would be “no.”
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Shock does not always equal funny and unexpected does not always equal funny, although funny is always unexpected. Andy Kaufman reminds me a lot of Sid from Pink Floyd. He hopped a bus to Crazy. It happens. Schizophrenia happens that way. I’m not attempting to diagnose his problem, but it was very obvious that a problem existed. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned “The emperor’s new clothes” and he or she hit the nail right on the head. The poor guy probably didn’t have a clue how “off the beam” he was, and really needed someone to point out his inability to track with the rest of the planet. Doing wacky things is hilarious and great and usually funny, but he didn’t have an “off” button, if you get my drift. He was incapable of determining an appropriate degree. It’s heartbreaking, I tell ya