Re: Kramer update

1

Maybe now we can argue about in what senses this video, and Michael Richards, are funny.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
2

I watched this last night, and man that was uncomfortable. I've gone all the way around to feeling a bit bad for Richards.

The generous part of me wants to believe this explanation, basically that he wasn't saying what he really felt, rather was just trying to be as hurtful as possible. Not that it makes it all ok, but I like to be able to believe the best (or at least, not the very worst) about folks, you know?


Posted by: Pooh | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
3

Read globally, link locally.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
4

Yeah, I guess the combination of a schizophrenic act, plus crazy anger, plus a power trip could explain his actions, without him having to hold racist beliefs.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
5

I should reiterate that I don't feel bad for him--he lost it, he loses, and that letting him continue to work sets a horrible example.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
6

I just get a kick out of the idea that "I was just trying to hurt them as much as I could" is supposed to be an excuse.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
7

6: Not an excuse, an explanation. A slightly more charitable explanation than "he's a monstrous racist" - he's just a childish asshole.


Posted by: Pooh | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
8

The excuse works, sometimes. Remember when John McCain defended his right to call his Vietnamese prison wardens "gooks"? The idea was that the harm they did to him was so great that he's justified in calling them whatever he pleases. McCain's explanation was more or less accepted by most people -- I don't know if it's because the word "gook" is less shocking to people than the word "nigger," or because the public more or less agreed that the jailers' crimes were so great that the use of a racial slur was appropriate.


Posted by: Junior Mint | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
9

To me, Richard's rambling remarks about "rage" are the striking part of that interview. He sounds like a man on a psychiatrist's couch. My superficial diagnosis is that he's suffering from the classic "lots of other issues we don't know about"--drugs, hyperinflated ego, satanic ritual abuse, whatevs.

Anyway, it's hard to watch Richards and Seinfeld talking to each other there and not laugh just a little. In my head, I kept hearing "Jerry, I'm sorry! I don't know what came over me!"


Posted by: Paul | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
10

I was hoping the Letterman appearance would consist entirely of transplanted quotes from Seinfeld episodes.

"Well, this is risky business. I'm all atwitter."


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
11

I watched part of The Daily Show which aired last night (guest was Tina Fey), but not the opening part, such that I do not know if it was filmed yesterday. Does anyone else know? I'd be curious how or if they covered this. Otherwise, there's not a new Daily Show until next Monday, so I'll never know how they would have covered it.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 2:39 PM
horizontal rule
12

That was a rerun.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
13

The Tina Fey Daily Show was a rerun.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
14

I maintain my original theory; "it can't come out of you, unless it was in you".


Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
15

d2 is a rerun.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
16

I would be kind of surprised to see the Daily Show cover it even if they weren't on a break. Stewart's a stand-up comic, and might have reservations about going after a peer (and perhaps acquaintance). More importantly, it's just not very funny material to work with.

Richards didn't finish articulating all of his thoughts during that Letterman appearance, but I sort of got the impression that he was just trying to be an outrageous comic. I wouldn't be surprised if his approach to hecklers was generally to respond with furious extemporizing. Maybe I'm reading into it, but I feel as though his desperation mounts in the original video: he keeps making the situation worse, waiting for the inspiration that will let him turn it around into a daring and/or hilarious bit of improvisation. But that never happened, because he's not that talented -- his instincts were completely wrong and he'd set off on an awful, ugly dead end, and there was no way to redeem it.

So yes, ultimately I think this episode is yet another argument against improv comedy. As for Michael Richards the individual, I don't really have an opinion either way (although I am a little sorry to see the legacy of UHF tarnished).


Posted by: tom | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
17

5: Richards will work again. Notice how the audience started laughing during his apology, as though they thought he was doing a Kramer bit?


Posted by: Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
18

I can relate to the "say the most hurtful thing you can when you're angry to *truly* get back at someone who has pissed you off" idea, but I agree with someone in the previous post on this subject, who said that when you're talking about lynchings over interupting "the white man" you've crossed a line. And you're a confessed racist at that point. More than just the n-word (which is bad enough and any white person who pretends like they don't understand the "double standard" over that word really do understand it and are just trying to stoke the fire) he was saying some pretty vile KKK-style violent shit. I wonder what the hecklers said that would make someone go into race-based hangings and white supremecy?!

On another note someone explain to me again why Sarah Schulman's n-word jokes are funny and not racist?


Posted by: Stroll | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
19

I couldn't see the original (Windows format?) and the Letterman is 'no longer available'. So, not having seen either, can I say that I'll take your word, and I should I find myself editor-in-chief of some major newspaper, I promise never to hire Michael Richards as an op-ed columnist. Should he work in showbiz? Of course: he's a huge talent. Ditto Wagner: love the toons, don't buy the politics.


Posted by: Backword Dave | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
20

Sarah Schulman? The lesbian playwright? I don't think she's ever told a joke in her life.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
21

Sarah Silverman, perhaps?


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 5:55 PM
horizontal rule
22

18, 20, 21 -- yes, I'm an idiot, I meant Sarah Silverman...I love Sarah Schulman.


Posted by: Stroll | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
23

18: A joke about the word itself is different from hurling it at an audience member.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
24

The reason I'm impressed by the apology is that while Richards himself says "I'm not racist"--and I believe him--he *also* says, at the end, that he has to do some "personal work." That, and his expression throughout, and the clear sincerity and angst of the whole thing for him, indicate to me that he's one of the very few famous people I've ever seen caught in public saying or doing something bigoted to realize that there's a conflict between their inner sense of themselves--not a racist--and the obvious manifestation of ideas, thoughts, or impulses that clearly *are* racist.

Which is why I think the arguments over "is he a racist" or "isn't he a racist," and whether his outburst demonstrates racist thoughts or "just" his attempt to say the most offensive thing that came to mind is kind of beside the point (and I think Richards himself realizes this, to his credit). Clearly, like most people, he thinks he's not a racist; clearly, like most people, he nonetheless believes and thinks some racist things.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 6:19 PM
horizontal rule
25

Fair enough...though I don't think all of her material is really about the word itself. I get that she's making a point about how funny an ignorant pretty young white girl can be...or something...but she gets away with it because she's a pretty young white lady. Nevermind.


Posted by: Stroll | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 6:27 PM
horizontal rule
26

You can find the apology here.

http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/dave_tv/ls_dtv_big_show_highlights.shtml


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
27

24 strikes me as everything there is to be said.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
28

Why, thank you, Neil.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:18 PM
horizontal rule
29

I think he means you can shut up now, B.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
30

Bitch, you've done it again!


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
31

Seinfeld's "Kramer" gets angry at audience, calls Black patrons "Niggers" (2836 views)
Seinfeld's Michael Richards gets angry at audience, calls Black patrons "Niggers" (2836 views)

Wow, just wow!


Posted by: Kramer | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:47 PM
horizontal rule
32
I want everyone to stop and think what this might be. I have not seen the clip but this may be a zionist ploy to stomp out freedom of speech.... THE TIMING IS VERY STRANGE (with the democrats now in control)...

Didn't think of that, did you?


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:55 PM
horizontal rule
33

I... sure did not.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
34

I admit that I did not.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 8:59 PM
horizontal rule
35

I have to agree with Neil.

That bitch person needs to shut up immediately.

No seriously, 24 summed up perfectly everything my addled brain was hopelessly trying to put into something resembling a coherent thought.


Posted by: peteyorn | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
36

Black Eagle, posting from Occupied Arizona, makes a valid point about how everyone is leaping to conclusions about Richards:

And this is exactly one of the reasons I no longer bother posting on SF, you get someone going off about "The Jew", using an absurd link like jewwatch as "proof", everyone goes into rabid hyena mode, without even bothering to check their facts or credible sources.

It's crap like this that makes the whole movement look paranoid. I'm sick of the zionist influence in this country as much as anyone, but at least make sure that if you are going to "name the jew" you are actually "naming the jew"!


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:04 PM
horizontal rule
37

Both paragraphs should be in italics.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
38

29: Aww, apo, you say the sweetest things.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:13 PM
horizontal rule
39
Good grief, so now Kramer's outburst is somehow part of a jewish conspiracy? I think everyone is reading a bit too much into this.
Maybe, but if if I had to place a bet on this, I'd go with a Zionist plot.

I have to keep telling myself this Stormfront thing isn't an extended parody.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:16 PM
horizontal rule
40

I'd go with a Zionist plot.

I think that every time a white Catholic insults an African-American.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:22 PM
horizontal rule
41

It's a Papist-Zionist double-whammy.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:31 PM
horizontal rule
42

The Stormfront board is mostly consumed with discussion of whether or not Richards is actually Jewish, and hilarious and semi-violent arguments crop up on the subject at various places in the thread.

My favorite part is how self-awareness flickers in and out of some of these guys.

I'm not saying the poster who claimed [that David Letterman is Jewish] did it for this reason but there are many people who assume anyone with a last name ending in "man" must be Jewish, which is far from the truth. Add a job in show business to that and someone will be labled a Jew for sure.

As for Michael Richards.....Italian? I'm not so sure about that. I know Richards isn't an Italian name. Perhaps it's a stage name, but someone changing their name sounds alarm bells to me. Besides, look at that schnoz on him!


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:32 PM
horizontal rule
43

I got bitten by that bug too -- the last paragraph was also part of the quote.


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
44

I love how Unfogged commenters are now accidentally sounding like Stormfront commenters. I keep reinterpreting you all after my shock wears off.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:37 PM
horizontal rule
45

You know, shock at such poor punctuation.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
46

Wikipedia says Richards' father was also named Richards. Even if he isn't a Jew, he's a Freemason, so you know what that means.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:40 PM
horizontal rule
47

Fucking masons.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
48

Between the Papism-Zionism-Freemasonry, he's alternately planning the eschaton, running the world, and attempting to undermine himself?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
49

Hey!


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:47 PM
horizontal rule
50

Is teo a mason? I'm so confused.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:51 PM
horizontal rule
51

I love how Unfogged commenters are now accidentally sounding like Stormfront commenters. I keep reinterpreting you all after my shock wears off.

The shock will wear off once you realize ZOG is real.


Posted by: Un | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:57 PM
horizontal rule
52

Sorry, 51 was accidentally pressed into existence. The third paragraph was supposed to be in bold.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 9:59 PM
horizontal rule
53

Is teo a mason?

No, but I come from a long line of masons. They're not that bad, honest.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
54

Also, blacks like Michael Richards have no right to impersonate white people to try to make the rest of us look bad.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:01 PM
horizontal rule
55

Not that I'm implying that being racist is bad, but that's how it looks in our society. Michael Richards, Chris Rock and the rest are full aware of this.

Apologies if this ends up on Unfogged instead of Stormfront.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:03 PM
horizontal rule
56

Ned you fool! Apologizing is a Zionist plot to keep the white man down!

Wait... Oh shit. Anyone have Letterman's number?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:21 PM
horizontal rule
57

Don't bother with LetterMAN, the "man" is a giveaway that he is a part of THE MAN, that is, the ZOG. Did you see how Richards was forced to abase himself? I can't believe a proud Aryan like him stooped to that.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:22 PM
horizontal rule
58

Wait, I forgot, Richards deserved that because he is a Jew, or I think he is anyway. Probably originally Rabinovich. Anyway, white power, yada yada yada, see you tomorrow.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:23 PM
horizontal rule
59

Sorry, I meant white pride. It's getting so you can't have pride in your ethnicity anymore without being painted as one of those "white power" types. Same thing with hailing Satan. Seacrest out, soul brother.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-21-06 10:27 PM
horizontal rule
60

Black Comics Weigh In On Racist Kramer Outburst

"You can't apologize for your emotions," [comic DeRay] Davis told SOHH exclusively. "It's like talking to somebody when you're drunk. When somebody's drunk, their true feelings come out. That was his stage. His stage was his alcohol and he said what he felt. He said it with too much passion."

I don't think I've ever heard anybody explicitly argue that people's true feelings come out when they're performing on stage, but I guess I can see where he's coming from.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 11-22-06 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
61

That's not what Davis said. He said "His stage was his alcohol and he said what he felt". If someone says "gin was mother's milk to him", that doesn't mean that everyone guzzles gin.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 11-22-06 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
62

I didn't mean to imply he was making a categorical statement. Really, though, I'm trying to think of a performer who's described as expressing his/her true feelings on stage, and drawing a blank. Maybe GG Allin?


Posted by: neil | Link to this comment | 11-22-06 1:50 PM
horizontal rule