Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Review: Man On The Moon 237

"Man In The Moon" may be the best holiday movie of the year so far, even though Jim Carrey is already much more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman, the man he portrays.

From Larry Flint to Andy Kaufman, director Milos Forman has become a chronicler of one of America's most distinct cultural species - the sometimes brilliant, offensive, self-destructive celebrity eccentric. What makes people like Flynt and Kaufman so American is that few societies would tolerate them at all, let alone elevate them to star status.

"Man In The Moon" may turn out to be the best movie of the holiday season. Jim Carrey's portrayal of the tormented Kaufman is the best performance by an actor in months.

Carrey's performance also highlights the one glaring flaw in any Kaufman story. The movie is bigger than its subject. Carrey looms much larger than Kaufman did. Kaufman, who performed on Saturday Night Live, then more successfully as the goofball "Latke" on the ABC sitcom "Taxi," was one of the most self-destructive figures in modern entertainment. And his fame was fleeting.

Although he could be brilliantly funny, he became obsessed with pushing the boundaries of what the public would accept, between parody and reality. He taunted women, working-class whites, and Southerners in particular, constantly challenging his audience to figure out what was a joke and what wasn't. Eventually, they stopped caring.

The producers of Saturday Night Live asked the audience to call in and vote on whether or not the increasingly controversial Kaufman should remain on the show. They overwhelmingly voted to kick him out, a stinging rebuke for viewers on a program that at the time reveled in pushing boundaries.

Carrey is wonderful at playing Kaufman, even as he perhaps inadvertently shows how much more grounded and talented he is as an actor and comedian. Danny DeVito is also first-rate as Kaufman's long suffering manager/agent George Shapiro.

Questions of free speech and public offense have always swirled around media and entertainment. This is the birthplace not only of the First Amendment but of the most elaborate ratings and blocking systems in the free world. Americans can never quite seem to figure out whether they really want freedom, or just love invoking the idea of it. Provocateurs like Hustler Magazine's Flynt and entertainers like the late Lenny Bruce and Kaufman are constantly forcing the issue.

Kaufman was a mess, even by contemporary celebrity standards. He bitterly resented his label as a comedian, viewing himself as a more sophisticated performance artist. Although he was wildly popular on "Taxi" as the odd-sounding "Latke," he despised commercial television and especially that particular role, even though it was making him rich and famous. Sometimes, he even walked offstage during live performances if audiences pressured him to play his TV character. This struggle of a performer to practice his art on his own terms is beautifully rendered by Carrey.

Kaufman flirted with various meditative and holistic groups and practices, none of which did him any good when he was diagnosed as having a fatal form of lung cancer.

What makes Carrey's acting so impressive is that Kaufman was not especially likeable, and so erratic and unpredictable as to be nearly incomprehensible. His crusade to make audiences think was in some ways admirable, but also arrogant, especially after it became increasingly clear that what his audiences wanted was just to laugh. One of the most effective things about this movie is that it makes you root for the audience as well as the performer. Comedy after all, is about escaping reality, not creating additional work.

Even though Carrey towers over Kaufman, in the movie and in life, "Man In The Moon" is a powerful, haunting look into America's celebrity culture.

If you want to jump in, please feel free:

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review:Man In The Moon

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Actually the review does make a comparison between the two. Actually he equates them. "the sometimes brilliant, offensive, self-destructive celebrity eccentric. What makes people like Flynt and Kaufman so American is that few societies would tolerate them at all, let alone elevate them to star status." "Provocateurs like Hustler Magazine's Flynt and entertainers like the late Lenny Bruce and Kaufman are constantly forcing the issue." I think this really goes beyond saying the director made both movies!?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Pushing the limits doesn't equal funny, no, BUT kaufman was never trying to be funny. He was trying to get a real reaction of any kind. He was shooting more for entertainment than humour, and he didn't care if he looked like a total jerk or unfunny to get it.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    If only Hollywood would open source Jim Carrey, then you could fix all his problems.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    (This information was taken from "Andy Kaufman Revealed," by Bob Zmuda)

    The vote on Kaufman's banning from SNL was modeled after a viewer vote held several weeks earlier on whether to kill or save "Larry the Lobster."

    The vote was brought on by SNL producer Dick Ebersol, who had been having a good deal of trouble with Kaufman's material for his scheduled appearances. It degenerated into a screaming match, with Kaufman walking out and never appearing.

    The vote was held several weeks after that, and was actually quite close. The final tally was 195,544 in favor of banning him, and 169,186 in support of him.

    For a more in-depth (and infinitely better written) description of the event, pick up "Andy Kaufman Revealed" by Bob Zmuda. It was a great read.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    i have to say this, because i really think andy kaufman was great and i think jon katz got a lot of things wrong.

    first, throw out the free speech bit. that has little if anything to do with the story.

    second, however big the subject was isn't really important. the story was touching, unique, and hilarious. who cares how popular or unpopular andy was? it really doesn't matter.

    now then, i don't think it's fair to say kaufman was a mess. why does jon think this? because he didn't care so much about the money when he did "Taxi?" because he despised sitcoms? i don't quite see jon's point

    it was a good movie. as i stated before, andy's story was quite unique, very touching, and altogether hilarious, so it was quite enjoyable to watch jim carrey (who played the part very well, i thought) recreate it. i will agree to an extent with a previous poster who said he'd rather have watched more real footage of andy, and in fact there is an andy kaufman special that airs every now and then on comedy central which is really a documentary of much of his life. i don't think carrey brought any of his traditional "stupid humor" to the movie though--after having watched the cc special i think he did a really good job of portraying kaufman. most of the time it really felt like i was watching andy and i didn't even think about the fact that it was jim carrey. all things considered, it was a good movie. go see it.
  • One thing about the Gatsby bit that I haven't seen/read elsewhere was, did he ever read the whole book onstage? The movie takes it that far, but did he really?
  • Wasn't The Great Beyond the one during the ending credits? It's similar to Man on the Moon, but different, made for the soundtrack.
  • The SNL vote deal was much more sinister than the movie portrays. Andy and director Dick Ebersol had agreed Andy would be voted out, but Tony Clifton would still come on. Ebersol and Lorne Michaels just didn't think Clifton would do well, chastising the audience, on national TV. But Andy wanted him on bad enough, he went through with the deal. And as Andy could do, he ensured enough people voted "No."

    Unlike the movie's 20some% voting for him, it was closer, 53% to 47%. And when the tally came in, Ebersol turned on the "deal" and told Andy he (or Clifton, or any persona) would never be on the show. Naturally, he was hurt. And this was just another hit in his downward spiral. It's amazing how many things went bad in those few months, his mother having a stroke, finding he had three months to live, getting betrayed by his favorite TV show, Taxi was cancelled, pro wrestling was over, and the TM powers that be told him he could no longer come to the retreats.

    Pick up the "Andy Kaufman Revealed" book by Bob Zmuda, it's worth the read.
  • Oh come on, you *have* too see the movie before you can make assumptions like that. Just because Jim Carrey got famous via stupid humor doesn't mean that stupid humor is all he's capable of.

    Besides, from the trailers I've seen, Carrey has Andy Kaufman down *perfectly*, right down to that demonic gleam he always had in his eye. I somehow seriously doubt that the script involves Carrey talking via his ass. Anyhow, he was pretty good in the Truman Show (which was, at least, an original movie).

    ----


  • ". . . he deserves more respect than he gets."

    I'm sorry. I have to disagree. I think Jim Carrey is perhaps one of the most over hyped "actors" of the nineties. Not only is he a BAD actor, but he is not very funny. Maybe I'm being hard on the guy, but come on... The Mask, Dumb and Dumber, and The Cable Guy (to name a few) were simply horrible movies that aren't even worth $1.25 from the "JACKED UP, WATCHED 427 TIMES, LEFT ON THE DASH OF MY CAR IN THE HOT DESERT SUN (that little dot's not white anymore)" section of Billy Bob's Bar, Gas, and Video Rental Shack.

    Remember Veara deMilo? That was funny!!

    Actually, you can teach a donkey how to sing, but he will still sound like an ass...

    --
    Kir

  • "Well I have to agree that he is WAY over-hyped. However, I can't say that he is a bad actor . . . he basically plays the same character."

    I guess that is really what I meant by "bad actor." He is, to me, like the Denzel Washington of comedy. Whenever I see Denzel play a role, it's always DENZEL I see... not his character (unlike Billy Bob Thorton, which amazes me EVERYTIME).

    Maybe this movie will change my mind, but I doubt it will.

    Actually, you can teach a donkey how to sing, but he will still sound like an ass...

    --
    Kir

  • I believe the vote was ~160,000 to ~195,000 pretty much a landslide.

    Mark
  • I won't see the movie because he's in it, I hate stupid humour. A movie containing real footage of Andy would have been much more interesting. IMHO
  • No, it's not being close minded, it's I'm not going to pay money to see a performer I don't like. The people that star in a movie are a large part of it's selling value or lack there of. I saw the Truman Show and while Carrey was tolerable in it, I think it would have been much better with someone else. I'll probably end up watching TMITM on an airplane or on TV but I don't think that I want to fork over $8 given a better that 50/50 chance that i won't like it because I don't like the star.
  • A lot of people here are not open minded at all. "Alternative" minded, but not open minded.

    Look at how many bash BeOS just because it's not Open Source. Look at how many bash FreeBSD because it's not Linux. Look how many bash space exploration because abstract knowledge is "useless".

    They may use a non-MS OS, but luddites is luddites.
  • there is some funny stuff if you browse at -1. Funny, that is, if you think it's funny to see things ridiculing Jon Katz and comparing his movie reviews to a small child's book report. I do.
  • Cameron Diaz; you haven't seen "Being John Malkovich" yet have you? Recommended.

    I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
  • I agree. "Childish book report kind of way" explains the review in a nutshell. Jon Katz is not much of a movie critic and he should stay out of this domain. His personal tastes are null and void.
  • What confuses Katz and most people about Kaufman was his style of comedy. Jim Carrey is basically a supercharged "Rich Little" on speed, (yes he is a rehash).

    Andy Kaufman was something no one had seen before his time. He LIVED comedy and every part of his life was part of the act. His willingness to stretch all the boundaries of performance art and never leave the stage (since the stage was his life) is what the comedians around him admired.
  • I tried to read the threads, but I can't seem to find it, and I have no real interest in seeing the movie at my cost.

    I didn't see The Truman Show until I watched it for free. It was well worth the cost and time though.
  • If you look at the previews and go "hey cool, I think i'd like to see that", then go see it, you'll be very pleased by it. if you look at the previews and you think you'll hate it, then you probably will... so DON'T GO.. if you're not sure, then ask a friend who did see it.. I took my girlfriend who had never heard of andy kaufman, and she thought it was very funny, and she even cried at the end (of course, she cries when she burns a piece of chicken.. so i donno what that says). I thought the movie was hilarious.. in fact it was the first movie I went to in a long time wher I actually laughed _out loud_ during the film. so did at least half the audience. and if you hate jim carrey, I'd still see it. Jim is nothing like his normal characters. I am not a huge fan of the mask, and dumb and dumber, and the many others he's done.. but I thought this was a great movie.
  • Oh, please do forgive me, as this is the morning time (albeit a bit later now), and thusly I was/am tired. And mind you, I did say rambling. :-)

    Much could have been said. Much wasn't. *shrugs* It matters not. :-)

    --

  • by Niac ( 2101 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:24AM (#1433257) Homepage
    (Info: I actually did go see the movie, so this is based in at least the sembalance of fact)

    I liked the movie. It was well done, and Carrey did a good job. The soundtrack was also excellant (REM always is. :^})

    I found that Katz' review meandered towards his usual tact -- about half way through the ''movie review'' he goes off on this tirade about Americans and their view of freedom. (Or at least his idea of what they think of it. )

    He attempts to get back on track with the review, but he never seems to. Instead he veers off into the related area of Kaufman's (and Carrey's as well) acting career.

    When looking for a movie review, I want to see soemthing that reviews the movie, not the background of the actors. But that's my opinion, YMMV. :-)

    Overall, I score this review a 7. Not horrible, but not great either.


    --

  • To the credit of the comedic industry, it has not spawned a cottage industry of teenagers who try to "push the limits" for the sake of it, producing mediocre work in the process, like most performance and visual art fields have (even written fiction).

    Rather, they're able to take the queues from Kaufman regarding what _was actually funny_ and move on.

    -Dean
  • Excellent point! Andy Kaufman wasn't so much doing comedy as he was prying it apart, to see what makes it tick. Then he showed you what was inside it. The comparison to writers like Barth is very insightful... the average fiction reader couldn't handle genius work, either. How many of you have read James Joyce' "Ulysses"?

    That gets back to what i said in my review... Andy Kaufman didn't so much make you laugh as make you squirm.
    ---
    120
    chars is barely sufficient
  • by Frank Sullivan ( 2391 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:13AM (#1433260) Homepage
    (I originally posted this review yesterday to a small discussion mailing list i share with a few friends)

    Man on the Moon
    starring Jim Carrey, Danny Devito, Courtney Love, et al
    directed by Milos Forman
    produced by Danny Devito

    "Man on the Moon" is the story of the rise, fall, and death of legendary
    comic Andy Kaufman. Some of you may know Kaufman from his role as the
    zany eastern European mechanic on the sitcom "Taxi". Others may know
    him for his occasional work on Saturday Night Live, and the story of how
    the audience voted to not have him on the show anymore. Or maybe you've
    never heard of him at all. Those who have watched his work generally
    either love him or hate him. He didn't like neutral reactions, and
    didn't get them.

    Author bias here: i think Andy Kaufman was one of the greatest geniuses
    in comic history. And yes, he fell on his face a lot, and went over the
    top A LOT. But when he was on, he was golden. Lots of comedians make
    you laugh. Some make you think. Andy Kaufman made you squirm. Of
    course, most people don't want to squirm, don't want to find humor in
    their own embarassment and shame, so a lot of people hated him.

    That being said, i loved this movie. It may not be one of the greatest
    films ever made, but it really works well, and tells a fascinating
    story. I think it's worth seeing even if you didn't like Andy Kaufman.

    What i liked most about it, i think, wasn't so much the story, but
    rather getting to see all the great Andy Kaufman standup shows and
    routines that were never captured on film. His work on Taxi and
    Saturday Night Live barely scratched the surface. In the film, you get
    the full story of his pro wrestling career, his famous Carnegie Hall
    show when he took the entire audience out for milk and cookies, the
    story of Tony Clifton, etc. This is hardcore genius work. And, like
    much genius work, it is often difficult to understand (at one point, his
    manager (Danny Devito) chides him and his writer Bob Zmuda (Paul
    Giamatti) for dragging out the Tony Clifton joke to where it was only
    funny to two people in the entire world... but of course, those two
    thought it was hilarious).

    The acting is generally superb. For me, Jim Carrey never completely
    became Kaufman, but that's probably because i had seen the real Kaufman
    so much. But i have to credit Carrey with getting his timing and
    mannerisms down as well as any actor is capable of doing them... and for
    Kaufman, comedy was as much a matter of timing as anything. The
    Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once told him the secret of being funny was
    "Silence", and he used silence more effectively than any comedian since
    Buster Keaton (personally, i say the essence of comedy is timing, but i
    suspect the Maharishi and i mean the same thing). So, despite the fact
    that i couldn't overcome the cognitive dissonance of Carrey playing
    Kaufman, it worked as well as such things ever do for me.

    Danny Devito plays Kaufman's manager George Shapiro (the film was his
    baby... he worked with Kaufman on Taxi, and then produced it as an ode
    to his friend). As George Shapiro, Devito provides the primary lens
    through which the audience sees Andy Kaufman. Fans of Milos Forman's
    previous work (Amadeus, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) will recognize
    the technique of humanizing a genius character for the audience by
    watching him through more ordinary eyes. As usual, Devito completely
    absorbs his role, becoming the most believable character in the film.

    Paul Giamatti as Kaufman's writer/partner Bob Zmuda, and Courtney Love
    as Kaufman's girlfriend, both deliver superbly given their somewhat
    limited roles. Courtney Love in particular doesn't get enough meat in
    her part to be much more than a mirror, but what she does she does very
    well. For someone like her who specializes in being over the top, she
    is very subdued and sensitive in the role.

    Perhaps the best thing i can say about this film is that i intend to buy
    a copy when it is available on video - for my children. Not for
    today... although there isn't anything in it that i don't think they
    should see (brief nudity? so?), it's very much adult humor, in that it
    is humor about how adults see the world. Andy Kaufman's humor, while
    childlike and evoking childhood memories, is not something children can
    even understand as humor. What's funny to adults is just normal for
    them. But, when they're old enough to understand, i want them to see
    this film. It's a matter of cultural education, getting a chance to see
    one of the greatest comedians ever in action. It's the same reason i'd
    get them a Buster Keaton movie, really.
    ---
    120
    chars is barely sufficient
  • I'm all for it. His position as sob sister for all the losers in the world due to his writing that inane "Hellmouth" crap gives him notoriety, but that doesn't translate into relevance, apparently. Personally, I find him and those who bleated about the hellmouth a little scary; these are people so maladjusted that I doubt they'll ever manage to get by in real life; posting a movie review that's only tangentially related to comp sci only contributes to his legacy of crap.

    Come on, Katz, get a life - and psychiatric help, too, until you figure out "the Hellmouth" is a fiction created by morons who feel so sorry for themselves that they spend all their time either engaged in infantile escapism, or chirping about it, instead of living their lives.

  • Interesting review, but you seem to not know all that much about Andy Kaufman, except for what was in the movie. I have always admired Kaufman for what he did, and the way he did it. The movie did Andy Kaufman a mediocre amount of justice. Bits and pieces here and there, but never the full scoop. I'm aware that by simply summarizing his most notable accomplishments that it limited the movie to slightly over 2 hours.
    But that's what plagued the movie. It went from him being a young boy to being a comic. Nothing in between. And when they tried to recreate Taxi, I almost walked out. Few attempts were made to make it look like Taxi, side the construction of the set. The few cast members they managed to squeeze into the movie are OLD. Then again, they've aged 20 some years since then. I'm not surprised that Judd Hirsch wasn't in it.
    I have never been a Jim Carrey fan. I personally find him unamusing. The only part he played well, and what most people still go apeshit over is one line:
    "Tank you vedy much"
    After the movie I promptly got out my Kaufman tapes and pretty much completed the movie. There was one key difference with watching Kaufman rather than Carrey.
    I laughed.
  • Larry Flynt may be a pornmonger, but he also had the balls to stand up for what he believed in. It wasn't sex he believed in. It was the freedom of speech/expression he believed in. He fought long and hard for these things and refused to back down - something most Americans would not do.
    Woody Harrelson's representation of Larry Flynt was excellent. It was also a very intriguing movie, although it lacked a few important details.
    Now, in relation to Man on the Moon, no movie 'biography' of any person is going to be 100% complete. Yet MotM lacked very important developments of Kaufman which made the movie sub par.
  • Comedy after all, is about escaping reality, not creating additional work.

    I really can't disagree with this more. On the simplest level, what would satire be?

    Regardless, Jim Carey has been milking toilet humour too long -- he's been typecast. I haven't seen this movie yet, but I look forward to seeing him in a serious role... it's a shame it has to be as a comedian though.

    I think I'll catch it on video.

  • No you're not the only one - I can't stand Jim Carrey in movies like Cable Guy, Ace Venturer, Dumb and Dumber - just stupid obvious humour.

    Funny is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but the kind of humour that is in those movies is the obvious predictable kind. If you want to make a 'stupid' humourous movie, at least make the jokes subtle or non-predictable. Having said that, I thought that some of Jim Carrey's other movies were pretty good - especially The Trueman Show which I thought was excellent.

  • I think the big problem is that Jim Carrey got 'big' with "Ace Ventura" and "The Mask", and for awhile he was typcast in created "Jim Carrey zannyness" vehicles.

    I think that I's only been since "Liar, Liar" that he's been able to show any more serious talent...

    jf
  • hehe it seems people get so flamed about this guy speaking out his opinion. Everyone takes everything he comments about and picks it apart like the bible. Should he be shot because he forgot it was "ON" instead of "IN"? I don't know the guy but I do know he has an interesting point of view on a lot of topics. He is opinionated but who isn't? Its everyone's right to be just that.

    As for this movie... I won't go see it for a couple of reasons. And this is my OPINION.

    1) Andy was funny because of his insanity but I don't want to see carrey as Andy. I just don't think I would enjoy that. I like carrey but I don't think this will be good.

    2) BIG TIME OPINION: I will NEVER see a movie with Courtney Love in it because her entire career has been based on the death of her husband... a man she by most of the facts released, killed or had killed. She disgusts me and she has no talent.. only tits.

    3) Well I don't need a 3 but I felt like making it look like I had alot to say. :)

    Anyway. Its a movie. Let anyone review it. Katz words aren't law. If you disagree with his review read another few.
  • Hmm, well, Katz's job description is "media critic", which encompasses "movie critic", so if as you say he's not much cop at that... well, maybe it's just his hobby, and he hacks some mean perl code for a living. In which case, don't be too hard on the guy, OK?
  • "Straight to Hell" Great soundtrack... take or leave the film.

    "Sid and Nancy" Great film/bio/story... powerful performances by Gary Oldman and Courtney Love.

    Hey... Isn't this news for nerds? hmmm... Did you see "Pi"?

    Happy New Year!

    James F. Bickford
    Sys Dev Assistant
    Electronic Interface Support


  • I heard someone on NPR say something about the movie... It went kinda like this:

    If you are expecting to see a biography of Kaufman, this is not the film for you. If you want to see something like an MTV "Rock-u-mentary", then you will like what you see. It does not dive into the person of Kaufman, it tends to highlight his career.

    Not that I may believe what was said in the review (I have yet to, and plan on seeing this film), but it is typical Hollywood to pump out crap. I cannot remember the last time I saw a film that had a "star" in it or a huge budget that impressed me any.

    "Pi" was the best thing I have seen in a long time.

    Happy New Year!

    James F. Bickford
    Sys Dev Assistant
    Electronic Interface Support
  • "even though Jim Carrey is already much more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman, the man he portrays. "

    Jon, please follow up on this... What do you base this on?

    Money?
    Hollywood Acting Rolls?
    Did you see someone on the E! channel say this?
    People Magazine?

    First, it would seem that any popular dead icon will be elivated to "legend", but Kaufman was an innovator. Carrey has emulated a lot of Kaufman's and Jerry Lewis' comedic tactics. Carrey is great, but he is appealing to his audiance. Kaufman was challenging. As it is with all of the greatest artists, it is those that break barriers, challenge the status quo and piss people with their work that will be remembered for their art.


    Happy New Year!

    James F. Bickford
    Sys Dev Assistant
    Electronic Interface Support

  • by mahlen ( 6997 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @07:12AM (#1433272) Homepage
    Bob Zmuda's book on Kaufman (Andy Kaufman Revealed!: Best Friend Tells All) is brilliant. While i haven't yet seen the film (and i am looking forward to it), the book goes into detail about the fact that Kaufman's most astonishing performances were performed for people who didn't know they were watching one. Things he did in restaurants, on the street. It's a great book, very funny. His point was that he didn't have to be funny, just interesting.

    And it's hardly fair to say that Andy flirted with meditation; he was a dedicated TM'er for his entire adult life, meditating every day.

    Of course, i'd be remiss not to mention Andy Lives [andylives.org].

    mahlen

    A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.
    --Robert Frost
  • I love Kaufman and I love Norm, and Norm loves Kaufman. He even has a bit part in the film. You don't have to 'get' Kaufman. He's just a guy who lived life the way he wanted and didn't let society or 'influential' people beat him into submission.
  • Ahhhh, but Rubberneck, now that's a movie...

    Time flies like an arrow;
  • After seeing the movie, I only have one question on my mind: Was Jerry Lawler really in on the wrestling thing?

    Before the movie, I had never heard that he was in on the whole idea. However, we know that the movie as semi-biographical and that the producers may have had to accept a revised history to get Lawler on the show.

    Lawler was in on it

    If Lawler was in on it, why would he give the joke away in the movie? Wouldn't it be better to keep it a secret and keep it larger than life?

    Lawler wasn't in on it

    If Lawler wasn't in on it, then this was his chance to make it appear like he was. In hindsight, he would have realized that he simply became a prop for Andy. With Andy dead, Lawler can throw in the final "punch."

    Does anyone out there know what really happened?

  • I somehow think this review was not posted by Jon Katz. You see, Andy Kaufman was this geek that was not understood by his audience (the average Joe). And what this imposter supposedly called 'Katz' says here is that Kaufman should have made an effort to be more likable to his audience.

    The real Jon Katz would have said that he could feel his pain, even if Kaufman would have taken an Uzi and had taken aim at his audience.

  • This is one of the major reasons I liked the movie -- precisely because he wasn't his typical dumb, plastic self. This wasn't one of the "Jim Carrey starring as Jim Carrey!" roles. I don't like him either, never seen any of his movies, short of his role in whichever one of the Batman flicks he was in.

    Before this movie came out, I'd heard stories about how after a filming session and then for a few weeks after the movie was completed, he actually had to regain his own personality back, because he'd absorbed the role of Kaufman to such a great degree. Indeed, he certainly did a great job.
  • hmm, I knew this was going to show up.

    In addition to seeing enough of his antics in various minor guest appearances on shows, TV commercials, etc....He was on "In Living Color" before he was ever in the movies...

  • I look forward to seeing him in a serious role...

    Rent "Cable Guy" if you haven't already: Apart from a few lines at the very end, his portrayal of the title character is IMHO excellent, the movie's letdown being the wooden acting from "Bore"derick.

  • First off (I know it's been mentioned before, but), seem like Katz's articles are anything but thoughtless self-serving fluff if he could do something like review a movie and get the title right. Secondly, Jim Carey is a celebrity. He hasn't been around long enough to be a legend. Andy Kaufman is a legend. He may not have been exceptionally popular, he may have pissed off a lot of people, he may have made folks uncomfortable, but he made a lasting impression on our culture, and probably has shaped what our culture is now to a certain degree.

    And okay, maybe he should've just made people happy and make them laugh, but some of us actually like being challenged.

    Jon Katz, Voice of the Ordinary.

  • You should be shot for talking bad about C. Love. Even if she was just a pair of tits, them ain't no bad looking tits. Yum!


    Bad Mojo
  • have to? non sequitur.

    No. Just a grammatical error. In fact, pointing out his error as a non sequitur is more of a non sequitur than the alleged non sequitur itself.
  • Where do you get off calling this piece, a 'review' of "Man On The Moon"? You've said NOTHING about the movie, except that it stars Jim Carey and Danny DeVito, and is about Andy Kaufman. ANYONE who has seen an advert for the film already knows that.

    Instead, you should have called your article "The Jon Katz Opinion of Andy Kaufman". And even as that, it wasn't a very good, or well thought out, one.

    Jon, if you haven't got anything to say, don't say anything. If you must spew, at least give your rant a suitable headline. Some journalist you're turning out to be.
  • I'm not sure that he ever actually finished the reading, but he read at least several chapters at some shows.

    Something else in the same vein that he used to do was to sing the entire "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" song for the audience.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Comedy after all, is about escaping reality, not creating additional work.


    Can't agree with this. Some is. But some of the funniest stuff I've heard has a bite to it.


  • What? What-what-what?

    I think Jim Carrey's life would make a GREAT movie.

    His family was so poor that for a while they worked (all of them) sweeping the floor at a factory late each night. For many years his entire family was homeless. He always wanted to become rich enough that his family would never have to go hungry again. ...and he has.

    While his early movies were always sophomoric, he has always said (paraphrased), "I'd hate to be 70 years old and still making movies where I say, 'all-righty-then'." Beginning with The Truman Show he is certainly making the transformation he seeks.

    Believe me... if you knew what you were talking about* you wouldn't have posted what you did.

    --JerseyTom

    Footnote:
    * -- Don't worry, this is slashdot. Posting about something WHICH YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT is exactly what slashdot is about. You fit in perfectly... ASSHOLE.

  • Actually, I must disagree. In recent years, Carrey has shown the makings of a legitimate actor. As far as just an every day man, he seems off the wall, and I don't know if I would go have a beer with him, but as an actor, he is getting better. His older movies show an actor who didn't have control, IMHO (except for Dumb and Dumber, a personal fav. If you went into that movie expecting more then the title indicated, you are the title. It was meant to be that mindless.). If you look at the Carrey timeline, as he has moved up with Liar, Liar, then The Truman Show, and now this, he has grown a great deal. Must we be reminded that another actor has gone through the same metamorphisis. Robin Williams was just as wild and, again IMHO, just as bad in such movies as Popeye, Moscow on the Hudson, and The Survivors. Since then, he has gotten quite better with recent titles like Patch Adams, Good Will Hunting, and Jumanji.

    Give the guy a break. He seems to be getting better with age :-).

    Bryan R.
  • Actually, I enjoyed both Mrs. Doubtfire and Hook. My point was that when he started acting, he was just playing his standup guy. That's all.

    As for Dead Poets Society, I enjoyed it so much, that I now own it. Fantastic movie!

    Bryan R.
  • Actually, the poster was poking fun at the posters for the movie. They say "Hello, my name is Andy and this is my poster." Same thing for the ad in the paper. "Hello, my name is Andy and this is my ad." A laugh riot. I don't get the childish book report thing, sadly....

    Bryan R.
  • "2) BIG TIME OPINION: I will NEVER see a movie with Courtney Love in it because her entire career has been based on the death of her husband... a man she by most of the
    facts released, killed or had killed. She disgusts me and she has no talent.. only tits. "

    Courtney Love was involved in the music scene, playing in Babes in Toyland and Hole, before Nirvana ever got popular. And she has been acting since the mid/late 80's as well. She had roles in "Straight to Hell" and "Sid and Nancy" (both Alex Cox films I believe).
    Get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off, fuckwad. She's also a very talented actress. Don't be so opinionated on something you obviously know nothing about and check out some of the movies she's been in.





  • I honestly don't think Jim Carrey himself wants to be considered more of a legend thant Kaufman. From what I understand from interviews and articles, Kaufman is one of Jim Carrey's idols.
  • The reason why he didn't recover was becuase the rare form of lung cnacer that he had was pretty much untreatable. There was nothing anyone could do for him. The ironic part is that Kauffman was such a health nut, and her certainly never smoked, the most certain route to cancer.

    Some people must have thought it was an act, but pictures that were printed in tabloids towards the end of his illness clearly show a man succumbing to a terminal disease. Of course, there were some people who thought that his *death* was a joke. Unfortunately, it was not.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    auntfloyd
  • Does pushing the limits make one a great human being? Seems that's about all Kaufman did. That he may have been trying to be funny is immaterial. He was offensive but not particularly funny.

    All comics try to be funny. Some comics push the limits of what is acceptable. Some manage to do both. I know it's just my opinion (well not just mine, as lots of SNL viewers apparently felt the same way), but Kaufman did not do both. He was just not very funny.
  • by evilpenguin ( 18720 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @06:26AM (#1433294)
    Let me start out by saying that I respect Jon Katz. I disagree with him a lot, but he is out there saying what is on his mind and standing up for that in which he believes. That said, I find it hard to believe that the man who claims to be in harmony with the outcast geek can manage to so totally misunderstand Andy Kaufman.

    With all due respect to Jim Carrey, he hasn't a fraction of Kaufman's talent. Katz makes the capital mistake of equating popularity with talent. This is rank hypocrisy from the man who defends the unpopular geek. Apparently that's easy when you're posting on a web site dedicated to the interests of nerds and geeks. It makes him popular here.

    Milos Forman has, it seems to me, been exploring what it means to be a rebel. From Amadeus through The People vs. Larry Flynt he seems to be looking for the stories of people who are standing proudly and self-conciously outside the current of their times.

    Andy Kaufman is held in awe by comics. This awe is not given him because of his success, but because of his daring. Not because he was always successful, but because he didn't merely make new material, he kept exploding the boundaries of what comedy is.

    In a world where you can't tell one comic's airline jokes from another comic's rush hour traffic jokes from yet another comic's relationship jokes, Kaufman kept walking on to the stage and doing material that most comics wouldn't dare to imagine, let alone perform.

    Practicing comics know that there is the safe way, which will keep you comfortably nestled in the audience's love, getting easy laughs from the amusing foibles of suburban middle-class life, and then there is the dangerous way where you cut through the assumptions, you pierce our neat ideas of order, you diassemble the human condition and make see ourselves anew. This is what great art in all its manifestations does for us. Sometimes it makes us uncomfortable and afraid.

    Most comics are hungry for the laugh, for the audience to like them and to think they are clever. I've dome some stand-up in my time and I must admit that I fall firmly in this category. What Andy Kaufman did may not have always succeeded, but it was done for some other reason. Some deeper reason than winning mere praise. He was driven to find some deeper knowledge of that place in us where laughter comes from.

    Now, I would not claim to know Jim Carrey's inner heart, but from watching his work over the years, I would say that he, like many comics of greater or lesser talent, works for the laugh, works for the love. He also, like many others, knows that that is a rather shallow use of the attention given the stage. I think he leapt at the chance to play Kaufman because it was an opportunity to move beyond the self-gratification and to do it from the safety of playing someone else.

    I have done both stand-up and stage acting (only semi-professionally, mind, I'm not "somebody.") and they are quite different. Being trapped in a written character actually liberates your behavior. Your free display of emotion is okay because it isn't you. It's the character; it's the writer.

    When you do stand-up, it is you, naked and alone before that hungry thing we call an audience. That's why most of us fall into the safe stuff. Andy Kaufman did something much riskier and much more dangerous. He didn't make laughs, he made art.

    Love the outsider.
  • Sure... but the point is that you were trying to argue that he is "a comedic legend." You don't become that by doing nothing new. He is a very good comedian. Fine. I don't debate that. But as of this point in time, he has done nothing to warrant the title of "legend." To get that, you have to be more than simply funny... you have to be bold and innovative. Carrey has potential, but has not yet realized it (IMHO). Is he funny as hell? Sure. But a legend? No. If you think he will become a legend, comedic or otherwise, then simply being funny, is not all that matters.
    --
    - Sean
  • Ummm... no-one here was claiming that Carrey did anything new for comedy.

    Chill!
    --
    - Sean
  • > Does anyone else find it strange that the movie was named after a song that only happened to mention the main character a few times?

    Not necessarily. The whole song was (is) really about alienation from society and a blurring of the distinction between the real and the imaginary.

    Andy Kaufman (in the song) is held up as a prime example of this, and in reverse, the song is held up as an exploration into the man (in much the same way that the movie is ostensibly such an exploration).

    In the song itself, the title comes from the phrase, "If you believed they put a man on the moon," which refers to disbelievers in the aftermath of the moon landing who thought the whole thing was a hoax.

    What better reference for the movie's (a movie about someone who was in a sense never "real") title than a phrase that questions what many believe to be a fundemental fact?

    That's where it comes from, and I think it's fitting.

    Besides, the song kicks ass :-)
    --
    - Sean
  • I hated Kaufman and I still hate Carrey; really, I do. This is not Carrey's movie, it's Forman's and DeVito (who USED to be purely physical but has transcended that for character acting)invests a class and heart. See it against your best judgment. Trust a fellow slashdotter on this, I REALLY hate Carrey, but this is a good movie.
  • make up your minds is it "man on the moon" or "man in the moon" get it straight...
  • Ya know, I generally like Katz's articles, but I think he's off the mark on this one

    • J.C. does do a fabulous job as A.K. No questions about that.
    • As someone who saw maybe an episode of Biography a few years back on A.K, seen a couple old Taxi episodes, and heard about some of his other acts from a friend who's really into A.K., I can't say I learned anything about him.
    • Unfortunately, the movie lacks a point of view. It's a cop-out to say that the subject does so the movie has to --- that's the "pathetic fallacy", for you lit-crit types --- and the lack of perspective makes it impossible to judge (in the broad sense of that term) what you're seeing.
    • Ditto the pathetic fallacy on the lack of character development. Not only for A.K. himself, which would be understandable, but for every other character in it -- there had to be more to his relationship with his girlfriend, right? We don't even find out how he meets Bob Zmuda. Or what drives B.Z.
    • This bullet point intentionally left blank.

    In short, I tried hard to like this movie but couldn't quite like it. I got out of the movie feeling like I'd seen a few minutes of a highlight reel and basically got ripped off. Sorry Katz, I think you're dead wrong on this one.

    And, for the record, I think A.K.'s comedy is more interesting than J.C.'s, but J.C. still makes me "laugh like a drain" in Patrick Stewart's words. (He was talking about Beavis and Butthead, though.)

  • I have to say; People that refuse to acknowledge Jim Carrey as an actor need a good slap in the face. I have seen every Jim Carry movie, and -- Damn, he has a -lot- of talent as both an actor and a commedian. It just so happens that being slap-happy and obnoxious is what got him famous.
    In The Truman show, he sometimes bordered on his slap-happy character, yet at the times it happened, I found it characterally perfectly acceptable; it was at times when the character should be snapping. Now, in Man on the Moon, he has proven beyond any doubt to me that he is a Damn Fine Actor. Being able to emulate another person's humor and personality so well that (this was on an interview on NPR, the agent was on the interviewee) Andy's agent (being one of his closest friends) says that he was taken aback by just how well Carrey does the roll, is one damn hard and fine accomplishment.
    I just don't see, and am incredibly irritated by, people who refuse to acknowledge him as an actor, not just an obnoxious fool.
    -Mog
  • i've read ulysses! dont make me poke you with my ashplant... or peg you with this potato i have, yes
  • Nice to see you noticed, Jon.

    You now have my respect. My attention is another matter ...

  • No, you shut up--I admit nothing!!!

    If McDonalds came out with a new McShitwich 70s Classic Burger that they did a really good job on, they would still be McDonalds and they would still suck. Jim Carrey is still Jim Carrey, ergo he still sucks. I am willing to forgive crimes against society way before crimes against culture. People go to prison for smoking a little pot because they're hurting society in some vague way, yet movies like The Cable Guy are OK? What! I don't think I'd want to issue jail time (but i might make an exception for everyone involved in Show Girls, shudder) but there should be excessive fines raised against all the stupid people involved in the making of crimes against culture, to discourage any further similar activity. The money raised could go to the NEA or something.

    I'm not joking, i'm serious here! I think Whoopi Goldberg should be made to pay out of her own pocket for damages inflicted on global culture for those Sister Act movies. Seeing her on Hollywood Squares is a small step towards justice, but it just doesn't go far enough. The crimes of Jim Carrey are possibly even greater, I would be willing to forgive him if he donated his proceeds from Man on the Moon towards improving the arts in the US (sorry rest of the world, we need it the most!) and promised to never make another movie similar to Ace Ventura. But thats not too likely to happen, so I don't think its too likely that i'm going to be acknowledging the "greatness of Jim Carrey" any time soon.
  • This is just the most slanted, misguided quote ever:

    "Man In The Moon" may be the best holiday movie of the year so far, even though Jim Carrey is already much more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman, the man he portrays.

    Jim Carrey has made more movies and more $$ but he is by no *NO* means more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman. Andy was a genius that will be remembered for generations to come, like Charlie Chaplin. Jim Carrey will be quickly forgotten as an icon of a very stupid age in media, gone the way of the Tony Danza's of this world.
  • by opencode ( 28152 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:56AM (#1433306) Homepage

    At the time of Kaufman's heyday, sure, everyone had an agent, but there wasn't as much competition for the buck as we have today, 15-20 years later. We want to be entertained, and we want to laugh, and we want to see someone push the limits, as long as it's entertaining. Today we have cable TV, high-spaz network TV, the Internet, and Jon Katz.

    Maybe this was true in Kaufman's day, too, but Carrey has successfully made Kaufman an entertainer, and in those moments where Kaufman is portrayed as the entertainer that went too far, Carey becomes a performance genius. This was true for Kaufman, too: this was why his "Taxi" character and lunge lizard characters were so popular: had these characters been the Real Andy, he would have been remembered as an idiot - and no man behind that idiot.

    There is no better "proof" of this than the SNL phone-in, where viewers decided that they didn't like Andy's art form, and opted not to see it anymore on late-night television. I suppose I can credit Andy for staying true to his form and not sell out to what the masses wanted him to become; but truth of the matter is, we didn't like Andy - and yet, he's regarded today as a legend.

    Someone please answer me this question: is it true that Andy didn't recover from his lung disease because everyone close to him thought he was just performing again (and by the time they realized he was serious, it was too late)?

  • This is what you call a movie review? It seems more like a rant against Andy Kaufman/praise for Jim Carrey. than anything else. Besides Carrey is good, DeVito is good, this review hardly even mentions the movie. Maybe we should have a vote on whether Jon Katz should be allowed to continue to appear on Slashdot. This is ridiculous.
    ^. .^
  • Have you ever seen anything in professional wrestling that wasn't staged. C'mon, just watch the tapes of the matches.
    ^. .^
  • I wonder who he had to bribe to get that signed.

    ^. .^
  • I think one of the most eloquent that Andy said and actually pulled was something to the effect of...

    "Laughter puts to much pressure on the audience, I want to effect them from the gut without knowing why or what is happening to them."

    It wasn't about comedy or song and dance. Andy didn't let the audience get away with just having fun. Laughing is just a reaction to stimuli, it's not a life changing experience. He wanted everyone to step back and look at themselves and realize it was all an illusion. The comedy comes from letting people think that it's real. The punchline is for the people who get it and are able to look at the animal in themselves, based on the reaction of those that don't understand.

    Everything Andy did was purposeful and exact. He wanted people to not like him, or think he was mediocre. John Katz article was just the punchline of Andy's joke... a perfect example of mediocre, normal response to well defined and orchestrated stimuli.

  • by Haven ( 34895 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:49AM (#1433311) Homepage Journal
    Jonathan please listen. Andy Kaufman is a comedic genius. We still cannot even today understand the levels his mind worked at. Please do not disgrace his legend and memory by saying that Jim Carey of all people even compares to him.

    "...even though Jim Carrey is already much more of a comedic legend than Andy Kaufman, the man he portrays..."

    How much do you want to bet that there will never be a movie about Jim Carrey's life?
  • Don't forget The Duck Factory.... Actually, that show was bad enough that I'm still trying to forget it.
  • He said comedic legend, not artistic legend. As a comedian, Carey is just as funny if not funnier than Kaufman was. Kaufman regarded his acting as more of an artistic expression, not just comedy. Carey, on the other hand, knows that he is a comedian an works at being just that. Therefore, as a pure comedian, Carey has accomplished much more than Kaufman did IMHO.
  • How can you not like Jim Carrey if you have never seen any of his movies. While I agree that his roles in Batman and Ace Ventura were as bad as they come, he was great in Liar Liar and The Truman Show. I cant stand how people formulate opinions based on things they know nothing about. It is just like when people regard all hackers as law breaking vigilantes (sp?) instead of making the distinction between crackers and hackers.
  • Who cares about doing something new? He is funny, and that is all that matters.
  • by dallas ( 38374 )
    In the movie Andy died, then the next scene Andy is up on stage. How does that work?
    Did I miss something?
  • I see a slight parallel between Kaufman's insistance on the audience's intellectual integrity and Richard Stallman's insistance on "freedom"...doesn't RMS (and GNU in general) do the same thing with people's right to use software? People just want to make their computers run...shouldn't we give them the right to pay for something if they want to (even when we can see that it's a ripoff)?

    Hmm..no. RMS is right and so was Kaufman. :-)
  • Now this is something I could see Andy Kaufman doing...

    LouZiffer

  • In Katz's defense, the 'O' is next to the 'I' on the keyboard. So maybe he's just clumsy instead of an idiot.

  • Nuts. "The Cable Guy" was definitely risky -- it
    failed, and the movie blew chunks, but it was definitely a gutsy move on Carrey's part. "The Truman Show" had many problems, foremost the cop-out ending, but Carrey's performace was strong there. "The Mask," of course, played directly into his talents and he shone there (and it remains Cameron Diaz' best flick barring "My Best Friend's Wedding" -- the woman cannot pull off lead roles to save her life).

    Kaufman gloried in deliberate obscurantism, and committed the one unpardonable sin: deliberately boring the audience. He's an interesting biographical study, if only because he was so fucked in the head, but really -- Carrey's more entertaining.

    gomi
  • >but truth of the matter is, we didn't like Andy -
    >and yet, he's regarded today as a legend.

    That's not really as uncommon as you might think. It happens in varying degrees at various levels of any "Art"...and while I, by no means, attempt to compare myself to Andy, let me offer an example from my own life.

    In my theatre, I was pretty much hated. Why? Because I knew what I wanted to do, how I wanted to do it, and by god, no one was going to stand in my way. During senior reviews, where my fellow classmates were allowed to give critique of my work (which had just gotten the first two standing ovations in my theatre's history, btw, one of my proudest "Screw you" moments to my theatre prof who failed me for the work in question, even after the two standing Os), one of those people who disliked me the strongest made the comment

    "A brilliant piece of work. But a loose cannon who can not play by the rules, in the end, can not play at all." and gave me a very low rating. During the session where we discussed these comments, I looked right at the guy and told him, and I still mean it as strongly today. "No one ever built a statue to someone who played it safe."

    Andy, if you liked it or not, liked HIM or not, was into his thing or simply couldn't bear to watch 20 seconds of it.....he was a man driven to follow his own road. If the people followed was not important, because in the end, if you are true to that desire and drive? The people will come.

    The hardest part about art, is that it's a very lonely thing...It doesn't have to be. You can go be Patrick Swayze, or any other number of people who are pre-pressed and delivered to the masses by the entertainment gurus of the world, and have a nice safe existence......and the only compass you have is that inner fire that tells you "Don't sell out, keep believing, keep going...just one more step." and the chance, that maybe someday, even after you're dead...you could have made a difference. Your life, your work could have meant something beyond a tattered old forgotten 99 cent rental in some cheap video store bargain bin.

    Like Andy or not, he did make a difference. And deserves... no, earned, his slot in history.

    There's a reason good art is hated. It scares people because it's not the pre-pressed safe stuff they are used to. But like moths, people are drawn to it anyway because it's created with fire, and it can burn. Here's to ya, Andy.
  • If it weren't enough to realize that the two are in totally different categories, you (mr catz) try to say the Carrey is 'better' than Kaufman when it was Kaufman that influenced Carrey, and many of the comics doing their thing today. Take a look at _any_ of the oddball stuff that Carrey does and it is simply a re-interpretation of everything that Kaufman did. Kaufman was a hell of a lot more than a comic, he was a sociology professer doing his doctorate. Instead of making the mistake of every other narrow minded reviewer, step back from the obvious and think about what Kaufman was doing. He was a genious at making up uncomfortable situations for people and seeing how they would react, and the fact that laughter is linked to Kaufman's act supports this argument, because we all know that laughter is the way that a majority of people (mostly Americans) deal with uncomfortable situations.

    I know I'm rambling, but you have to see the fact that Kaufman's act was _so_ much more than what you see on the surface. He was constantly experimenting, and he was different. It was his difference, not his act, that people chose to hate, as many do when faced with something they do not know and are not willing to look into.

    I had a point, but I have no idea if I hit it... sorry to have taken up your time.

  • I'm not sure how being on the cover of Time equals being "ignored by the media." Truman Show was hyped through the roof, if you'll recall, and while I thought it was pretty good, Carrey's acting honestly just proved that he didn't have to be Ace Ventura all the time. He didn't really do much special other than that. Man on the Moon, IMHO, is the first time that Carrey has actually proven that he can actually act, and therefore it's the first movie that he actually deserves an Oscar nomination for.
  • I have long been an Andy Kaufman fan. Maybe one of the reasons for this is that I came upon him after the fact. Probably not too many Slashdotters actually remember Andy Kaufman, and went through what he put his audiences through.

    I am not sure if I would have liked him so much back in the late 70's or early 80's... but I like to think I would have.

    I think Katz is off by even trying to compare Jim Carey to Andy Kaufman, saying that Carey is already bigger than Kaufman. Of course he is... Jim Carey is by all means a conventional comedian (I happen to love him though), he has in no ways pushed or challenged conventional methods or barriers or brought any new aspects to comedy or acting. Kaufman did. I tend to agree with Kaufman's view that he was more of a performing artist than a comedian. Just like any succesful artist (of any medium), he painted emotions... and I can scarce come up with anyone else who could so succesfully bring out such a wide range of emotions out of an audience.

    We know how many comedians have been influenced by Andy Kaufman and consider him a genius... how many future ones will think the same thing of Jim Carey (and consider him a genius)? So by no means is Jim Carey bigger than Andy Kaufman... at least in my book.
  • Why not default all replies to Katz articles to (-1, Flamebait) to save moderators their precious points? The number of moderator points that have been wasted trying to keep people who browse at 1 or higher from noticing that half of the people who post on /. hate Katz must be staggering.
  • by Savage Henry Matisse ( 94615 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:26AM (#1433356) Homepage
    I agree that, 9 of 10 times, Kaufman wasn't all that funny. I note that while most Average Joes seem to appraise K. at about this level (i.e. nine-tenths funny) must professional comedians and comedic actors LOVE K. This relationship is analogous to the situation of writers like John Barth: an incredibly influential guys who most Average Joes haven't heard of-- and if they have, they find him almost unbearable. Nonetheless, writers (both aspiring and accomplished) always have an opinion on Barth, and most of them think he's a genius.

    What it boils down to is this: much as Barth writes meta-fiction (that is, fiction that is not just about the story's characters, but also about itself as a work of fiction, an artifical experience written on a page) Kaufman (sp?) was a meta-comedian. His act wasn't just about being funny, but examining how things are funny and how we find them to be funny. In this sense, yes, the man was certainly an artists. But, that by no means is to say that he was especially aesthetically appealing or all that much of a blast.

    Again, just the opinion of one guy who isn't a comedian.

  • by east_bay_pete ( 96651 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:02AM (#1433361) Homepage
    isn't this movie entitled "Man _on_ the moon"?
  • > I think Jim Carrey is perhaps one of the most
    > over hyped "actors" of the nineties. Not only is
    > he a BAD actor, but he is not very funny.

    Well I have to agree that he is WAY over-hyped.
    However, I can't say that he is a bad actor.

    So far it seems that in every movie I have seen
    him in, he basically plays the same character.
    All of them have basically been wild comedies
    of one sort or another that feature his brand
    of humor.

    Basically, the roles he has been in so far have
    been way too shallow to gauge any sort of acting
    ability. Put Cary in a lead role in Hamlet and
    see him act, then I will tell you if he is a bad
    actor or not.

    I have yet to see this Man On the Moon movie,
    I have a feeling this role may be the first one
    of his that is deep enough to truely get an idea
    of his abilities. (deep enough in that Andy
    Kaufman had a completely differnt personality than
    Cary does) .
  • read Zmuda's book. I haven't read it yet, but I bought it the other day. According to the reviews, Zmuda states whether Lawler was in on it or not. I heard a long radio show with Zmuda a few weeks ago, and although he didn't give away whether or not Lawler was in on the whole act or not, he did say that everything Andy did was a setup. Cussing out Lawler on Letterman? staged. Dave didn't know it was going to happen, but they got prior permission from some network higher-ups beforehand. Thing is, and this is what Zmuda said in this interview, you don't do the things AK did on TV and get to keep coming back unless you have permission beforehand. Kaufman, Zmuda, and Shapiro knew this.
  • by sickboy12 ( 122064 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @05:29AM (#1433383)
    Or at least, he never saw himself as such. He considered himself a performer - more than he wanted to push boundaries, he really wanted to perform. Even in his big comic successes like the Carnegie Hall show, he wasn't trying to be funny during probably 90% of the stuff the audience was laughing at. He was there to perform - to entertain - the same way he had been entertained by TV shows like Howdy Doody etc. when he was a child. Was he funny? Absolutely, but not exclusively.
  • I find it humorous that Katz would make a statement such as this. In fact, I found nearly *everything* Katz said in his "review" humorous.

    Allow me to explain. Judging from Katz's comments of Kaufman, it would seem that he has fallen into the same trap that Kaufman critics have been falling into for years...and would also lead me to believe that he didn't *really* pay that close attention to the film (Man *IN* the Moon???)

    "...he became obsessed with pushing the boundaries..."
    Became? It would appear to me (after having actually watched the film) that Andy was obsessed with pushing the boundaries of what people would accept way back when he was a child, performing to the wall.

    "He taunted women, working-class whites, and Southerners in particular, constantly challenging his audience to figure out what was a joke and what wasn't."
    Hmmm...doesn't really sound *any* different than what any of the scripted bad guys say and do on every episode of WWF RAW. Yet you don't hear Katz whining about any of those guys. In fact, I found Kaufman very reminiscent of the modern professional wrestlers...if not the predecessor.
    Katz doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between one of Kaufman's characters (in this case his wrestling persona) and that of the "real andy kaufman."

    "They overwhelmingly voted to kick him out..."
    Poor Katz. Kaufman was only "overwhelmingly kicked out" in the movie. In real life, the vote was much closer. Andy lost 195,544 to 169,186.

    "Although he was wildly popular on 'Taxi' as the odd-sounding 'Latke...'"
    Uh...its LATKA!

    "Kaufman flirted with various meditative and holistic groups and practices, none of which did him any good when he was diagnosed as having a fatal form of lung cancer. "

    This sentence irritated me more than the rest of Katz's "review" did.
    Flirted? Kaufman was incredibly serious about his transcendental practices...even the movie was clear in showing how hurt Kaufman was when he was asked to leave the group.
    None of his practices did him any good? Maybe it was because by the time his cancer was detected it was incurable and, in fact, not even modern medicine was of any use to Andy.
    Mr. Katz, its one thing to attack a movie or a character in a movie, its another thing entirely to attack the personal choices of Kaufman.
    As I alluded to earlier, its almost as if Katz didn't even pay attention (or watch it at all...)
    He could have told us specifically why the movie was one of the best of the year, but instead he merely tells us generic examples of how he believes Carrey to be better than Kaufman.

    That said, I still don't see how watching a movie gives Katz poetic license (or any license whatsoever) to criticize the real Kaufman's religious/spiritual choices.

    Very low ball...even for JK.




  • The review was not making a comparison between Larry Flint and Andy Kaufman. It was referring to the fact that the director, Milos Forman, has made movies about both of them, and they are/were both people surrounded by controversy.

    -----
  • by pulski ( 126566 ) on Thursday December 30, 1999 @04:17AM (#1433392)
    One thing about this movie that impressed me and made me want to see it was the way it was made. Jim Carrey was devoted to making this movie as real as possible. While on the set of the movie Carrey was always in character. He was never himself. He was always trying to stay in the mood that made Andy act the way he did.

    Also, when the movie was being made it was rumored that Jim Carrey had suffered an actual neck injury at the hand of Jerry Lawler, the wrestler who supposedly broke Kaufman's neck in real life. This rumor was the kind of thing that Kaufman lived for. He wanted people to wonder when he was telling the truth and when he was playing a role.

    In conlusion, I think that even if you weren't a fan of Kaufman, but were aware of the kind of person he was, you would enjoy this movie. Jim Carrey did an excellent job in the role and I think that his performance alone merits seeing this movie.

    -----

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin

Working...