# Michael "Kramer" Richards and racial slurs...



## Cruentus (Nov 21, 2006)

Here is some video and an article on the subject...

Here was a video of the act...(*warning, foul language and racial slurs*)




 
Here is Richards on the Letterman show apologizing and explaining...




 
I don't really have much to say on the issue, other then that's pretty messed up...


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 22, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Here is some video and an article on the subject...
> 
> Here was a video of the act...(*warning, foul language and racial slurs*)
> 
> ...



Thanks for looking it up... I had heard about it, but not seen it yet. The second link has been removed, but I'm familiar with what he said. If I recall correctly, he even mentioned about Katrina and Bush 

Its kind of interesting... comedians say things that noone else normally would say. Went to a comedy club in the area and about every third word was a naughty word. :idunno:  I don't know anyone that talks that way in normal life. I think the stage gives them an element of bravery and courage they would not ordinarily have.

Still, the phrases he used is kind of odd... depending on who says it, its ok... I dunno, that just seems odd... :idunno:


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 22, 2006)

I have always liked Michael Richards, but this incident has changed my perception of him. I was shocked by his words and reaction.  He was waaaaaaay out of line.


----------



## matt.m (Nov 22, 2006)

I always liked Sienfeld, however this guys a racist jerk.  One of the best qualities of the MA practitioners is that we are "Color and Gender blind" or at least you should be.  The MA's are, at least in Moo Sul Kwan a strong proponent of absolute acceptance of everyone or get dismissed from class or the organization entirely.

Judge on merit alone, period end of story.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 22, 2006)

Michael Richards screwed up.  A good comedian can actually use the heckler as part of his routine, and insult the heckler while still playing to the crowd.  In Richards' case, though, he lacks the experience and self-control to do this.  He's a subpar actor who is trying to be a comedian, and often times, this doesn't work out.  

Now that he has flushed his credentials down the toilet, he is going to have to take a long, hard look at himself.  

That being said, though, there are some things society probably needs to review.  Is it really OK for black people to condemn Michael Richards for his words, while many of them are applauding Chris Rock for his anti-white and anti-black statements?  Shouldn't they be condemning people the likes of Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, etc.?  If a white person used the same lines from the skits of Rock, Murphy, et al., I think you all know what the results would be.  

There's no one right answer to that question.  Some of the answers I've heard on this matter:

1) Maybe people need to grow thicker skins, and stop taking offense to racism, regardless of whether the comedian is black or white.  Even though many people find racism offensive, there is still going to be some comedy value in a well-written skit that just happens to use racism to help people laugh.  

2) Maybe it should be up to *everyone* to stop using racially charged material in their comedy skits.  This would *especially* include many black comedians, who pull no punches when it comes to using racist material (both black vs black and black vs white).  Maybe it's up to the black community to lead by example and take the high road.

3) Maybe people are making too big of a deal about the whole situation.  Michael Richards is a has-been in Hollywood, and of no real importance.  This is about as much entertainment as wondering who the next beau of Paris Hilton will be...


I think we can all agree, though, that Michael Richards has flushed his career down the toilet, and unless he decides to take Robert C. Byrd's place in the Senate in 2012, his time in the limelight has passed.


----------



## rutherford (Nov 22, 2006)

The whole thing screams Andy Kaufman to me.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 22, 2006)

rutherford said:


> The whole thing screams Andy Kaufman to me.


 
Well....not really. I don't know if you had the chance to see the Letterman interview, but he was really remorseful and apologetic and really felt bad about what he had done. I wish they hadn't of removed that link because it gave a balanced view of what happened. Granted, it doesn't excuse anything, but it at least provides a balanced view.


----------



## bydand (Nov 22, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Well....not really. I don't know if you had the chance to see the Letterman interview, but he was really remorseful and apologetic and really felt bad about what he had done. I wish they hadn't of removed that link because it gave a balanced view of what happened. Granted, it doesn't excuse anything, but it at least provides a balanced view.



Remember he is an ACTOR.  It is east to be remorseful and apologetic when you are aware the public opinion has turned against you.  It would mean more if he had come back on stage after walking off and made the same statements.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 22, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Michael Richards screwed up. A good comedian can actually use the heckler as part of his routine, and insult the heckler while still playing to the crowd. In Richards' case, though, he lacks the experience and self-control to do this. He's a subpar actor who is trying to be a comedian, and often times, this doesn't work out.



You're absolutely right. I should clarify my earlier statement when I said I always liked Michael Richards. It should read, I always like the Kramer character. To be honest, I never enjoyed him in anything else. 



			
				Grenadier said:
			
		

> That being said, though, there are some things society probably needs to review. Is it really OK for black people to condemn Michael Richards for his words, while many of them are applauding Chris Rock for his anti-white and anti-black statements? Shouldn't they be condemning people the likes of Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, etc.? If a white person used the same lines from the skits of Rock, Murphy, et al., I think you all know what the results would be.



This is different. I think most people can laugh at stereotypes of themselves. We can discern a comedic act from maliciousness. Look at Charles Mencia. He has highly offensive material, but we can laugh because we know he means no ill-will toward anyone personally. They are comedic observations. The best comedy has an element of truth to it, that's why we laugh. This was no comedy act. He meant to cut with his words. He wasn't even comedically clever. Like you said, a good comedian can use a heckler to their advantage. He was absolutely out of control and completely racist. 




Tulisan said:


> Well....not really. I don't know if you had the chance to see the Letterman interview, but he was really remorseful and apologetic and really felt bad about what he had done. I wish they hadn't of removed that link because it gave a balanced view of what happened. Granted, it doesn't excuse anything, but it at least provides a balanced view.



I saw that interview before I saw I tape of what actually happened. I agree, he was truly remorseful and I wondered if perhaps it was yet again another overreaction by the media. It was not. I was absolutely shocked when I saw the tape of what happened. His comments went beyond insults. It was a racially charged tirade. He was out of control. It was racist to the umpteenth degree. Sure he regrets it.


----------



## Drac (Nov 22, 2006)

Never thought he was that great of an actor, and now we know he is NO comedian...


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 22, 2006)

I saw the Letterman interview of Jerry Seinfeld and, by satellite, Michael Richards before seeing this portion of his show.  I also heard Mark & Brian replay the Letterman interview on their show and an old acquaintance of mine, Frank Sontag, made an interesting comment about Richards.  His opinion  is that Richards has a rage problem.  My husband speculated that perhaps he's on drugs.

All I can say is I know everyone has bad days and it can affect anything in ways unexpected of and atypical the individual and manifest in really offensive ways.

I'm not sure what was going on with Richards that night, but what I did appreciate is he took responsibility for what he did on Letterman - something we don't see a lot of anymore.  He's clearly upset by it and whatever caused him to lash out in this manner.  He used the word 'rage' and I'd have to agree - he displayed problematic rage instead of self-control, though I don't think the rage issue is an excuse for using such an offensive, wrong tack!

I'm also going to say a very unpopular thing here:  When we're reacting to and analyzing anyone's behavior, I think it is incumbent upon us to remember the intention behind the behavior.  Heckling is becoming more the norm than the exception in comedy clubs especially these days.  Yet, as I said before, that's not to say that being heckled is any excuse for a racist tyrade.

I like Richards and think if he explored other acting tools besides free association, characterization and the method, he'd likely have more success in both performing as a carreer AND doing the personal work he clearly needs to do.

This was shocking, to say the least.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 22, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> I saw that interview before I saw I tape of what actually happened. I agree, he was truly remorseful and I wondered if perhaps it was yet again another overreaction by the media. It was not. I was absolutely shocked when I saw the tape of what happened. His comments went beyond insults. It was a racially charged tirade. He was out of control. It was racist to the umpteenth degree. Sure he regrets it.


 
Yup. Which is exactly why I don't think this is an Andy Kauffman stunt. I think that he legitimatily went on an inappropriate tirade and legitimately now has to deal with the aftermath of his actions.


----------



## rutherford (Nov 22, 2006)

Depends on the intention.  It is starting a lot of interesting dialogs.

I don't know Michael Richards, and in general I'm not much interested in Why people do stuff, more the things they do and their effects.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 22, 2006)

I think the word should be OK to use for everybody or nobody. Judging intent in this sort of thing is a quagmire.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 22, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I think the word should be OK to use for everybody or nobody. Judging intent in this sort of thing is a quagmire.



Yeah, but did you see/hear the actual tape? It goes waaay beyond the use of the "n" word. There's no missing his intent at the time.


----------



## zDom (Nov 22, 2006)

I saw the tape. Richards was out of control. If he was trying to be funny, he failed miserably.

On the other hand, I agree with the above comment: the "N" word should be used by NOBODY. 

How racist is it to make money putting the "N" word in rap music, videos and casual conversation and then to cry bloody murder when someone else uses it?

Racism is not dead, there is no doubt about it. But most racism I see nowadays is black vs. white, not white vs. black.

White racism gets called out instantly with a public outcry. Black racism is around us everyday. Think of all the black organizations and then consider what would happen if someone formed a "National Association for the Advancement of White People." Or a "White History Month."

Blacks around here, at least, as well as many I see in national media give me the impression they think it is alright to act rudely and offensively as a form of reparations for white racism of the past.

Why is OK to call me "white boy" or "whitey" or other racist names?

Why is it OK for black comedians to portray white people as rigid, uptight dorks with no rhythm, but wrong for white comedians to wear blackface or imitate black dialects of the past?

Why is a C-list wanna-be comedian's racism national news but daily racism from black comics a non-issue?

Eliminating racism necessitates being color blind when it comes to race, not making special provisions for one race or raising public outcries only over one form of racism while ignoring others.

No more "it's a black thing" excuses. No more affirmative action. No more one-way racist comedy.

Let's grow past ALL this crap and become ONE NATION under God, indivisible.

/end rant.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Regardless of the language he used, he clearly had lost control of himself!  A good comedian would have turned things around on them as part of the show.


----------



## stone_dragone (Nov 22, 2006)

I just watched it.  I had initially thought that he was using questionable language as part of his routine intending to shock...

Nevermind.  That was pure directed anger.  Very unpleasant to watch.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 22, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> I'm also going to say a very unpopular thing here:  When we're reacting to and analyzing anyone's behavior, I think it is incumbent upon us to remember the intention behind the behavior.  Heckling is becoming more the norm than the exception in comedy clubs especially these days.  Yet, as I said before, that's not to say that being heckled is any excuse for a racist tyrade.



What you say kind of ties in with something I once saw.

I am a racial minority here in Japan. I saw a situation where someone lost control at someone who was of a different race and cut loose with some of the worst racist terms you can imagine. Yet I am pretty sure this guy has no real feelings of hate or racism toward that group. Afterwards, he admitted that his one and only intent was to hurt the other guy by any means he could. And he seems to have thought that racist terms would do the job best.

Yeah, he is an idiot and can't control his rage. But I don't know if he is really a racist.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 22, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> What you say kind of ties in with something I once saw.
> 
> I am a racial minority here in Japan. I saw a situation where someone lost control at someone who was of a different race and cut loose with some of the worst racist terms you can imagine. Yet I am pretty sure this guy has no real feelings of hate or racism toward that group. Afterwards, he admitted that his one and only intent was to hurt the other guy by any means he could. And he seems to have thought that racist terms would do the job best.
> 
> Yeah, he is an idiot and can't control his rage. But I don't know if he is really a racist.


 
I observed a similar event where a young teenage girl called a school administrator the "N" word. Was she racist? No, I don't think so - particularly as her best friends were black. Was she being a brat? Heck yeah and she deserved whatever she got when her extremely embarrassed and angry parents were called to the school.


----------



## donald (Nov 22, 2006)

I think that Mr.Richards outburst was just that, an outburst. I don't know about anyone else here, but I have had moments of shame. When I said something that was just out there, and like we all know even 1 tenth of a second after you've said, it is just to late. I think that as long as he has been on the public stage,ie;comedy clubs etc.. If he truly was a biased man. Some how, some where, it would have been brought to light before this. Only GOD, and he truly knows, but I think it was probably a very loud mistake.

1stJohn1:9


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 23, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Afterwards, he admitted that his one and only intent was to hurt the other guy by any means he could. And he seems to have thought that racist terms would do the job best.





			
				Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> I observed a similar event where a young teenage girl called a school administrator the "N" word. Was she racist? No, I don't think so - particularly as her best friends were black. Was she being a brat? Heck yeah and she deserved whatever she got when her extremely embarrassed and angry parents were called to the school.


I understand this and agree 100% that people do that for the sole reason of hurting their target. I believe that was the intent of the hecklers who responded to Richards by calling him "cracker" etc. And I would say it would be the case if Richards called them the "N" word. The thing that crossed the line for me was the comment that "50 years ago you'd be upside down with a fork up your ***" and the fact that he frequently looked up as if addressing the men from the ground and pointing up at them. (You understand the implication).

I don't know the state of Richards heart, but there is a saying, "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". I think it could apply to out of control anger/rage as well. I do believe he is truly repentant and shocked at himself.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 24, 2006)

Something that's odd to me is that entertainers are actually listened to and given more credit than they deserve. Honestly, if Richards wasn't the odd guy on Seinfeld, they would've, or could've, found someone else just as eccentric to fill the part. I have a feeling people in the entertainment business are told this all the time. It's no surprise that, when someone stoked those insecurities, he lashed out at, possibly, a proxy for someone, or an industry for that matter, that made him feel that insecure in the first place.

I have compassion for him as a person. Some people are born entertainers and wouldn't do very well in most job situations. He may not have wanted to be there in the first place but, if his job options have become very limited, he's got his back up against the wall. At least, now, he can get a normal job and get out of that industry for good.

There are some great points about martial color-blindness and one-way racism here. Something that martial arts seems to teach is getting people out of the victim mindset so that they can survive in the world. Maybe more people need to get involved in martial arts. It seems like people find civility real quick when they realize that there might actually be consequences for their actions instead of someone apologizing them away.


----------



## Last Fearner (Nov 25, 2006)

Many of the thoughts that I have had about this media story have been touched on in scattered comments here and there throughout this thread.

I agree that Mr. Richards made a mistake, and that his comments crossed a line of inappropriate behavior. However, I believe most people agree to this in hindsight, as well as Mr. Richards. By most standards of decency, it was wrong, and he shouldn't have done done it.

Now, as to an analysis of the intent, reasons, provocation, and underlying racism in his character, none of us really knows. Some here have stated that they too have made mistakes, and said things they regret. I think we all have. Anyone who has been in a troubled relationship might have said things to a spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend that we really did not mean. As others indicated, it is said in anger to hurt the other person, not from the heart, but without thought.

I also choose to view this incident as an exceptional circumstance whereby many are applying rules of behavior that we ordinarily would expect in public, in the workplace, or by politicians, police officers, and public officials. However, performers and entertainers are a different breed, who live in a different world, and their "work-place" often involves a fantasy world that does not conform to the normal rules of society. This doesn't excuse the behavior, but it often explains why they go out of control, or step over a line before they realize what they have done.

Take, for instance, comedians like Don Rickles. His entire act for decades has been about insulting people in the audience. He and others have used sexist jokes, racial comments, and picked on all sorts of cultures and religious beliefs. When these comedians get heckled, sometimes they begin to sweat. They feel the pressure. This is their lively-hood, and if they are successful and the audience likes them, they are paid good money to perform again and again. 

On the other hand, when some wise-cracking audience member (often a loud mouth drunk) becomes a "part of the act," the comedian might feel threatened. If the heckler makes them look bad, or gets more laughs than the comedian, stress kicks in. Some of these performers might be a little drunk, or on something to help calm their nerves for the performance. This might reduce the inhibitors in the brain which tell us, when we are tempted to lash out with a cutting remark, "No, don't say that!" Instead, they let loose, with anger, rage, and a defense mechanism that has now gone out of control. Some, more seasoned comics, are better at choosing tactful responses.

The problem is that a comedian is on a stage - - a performer being someone they are not. You will often find that many bold, mouthy comedians and talented actors are really very shy, quiet, and reserved in their everyday life. When they go on stage, they become a "character." These characters often say things during the act that the comic would never say to anyone in their real life.  It is a different environment.  If the audience was watching a play about slavery, and Mr. Richards was portraying a racist slave owner, they would not be so shocked to hear him read lines of a script that said the same things which he spoke in anger.

Is there a difference? Yes, in our minds there is. Yet in the mind of a performer, he can very easily become caught up in the moment, and the "character" that is emerging on stage. If the audience member "contributes" to the act, and Mr. Richards used racial slurs in a rant that might have seemed comical to him at the time (I believe I heard some audience members on the tape laughing during his rant), or intentionally outrageous, he might have done so in the guise of an alternate personality. He may have been acting defensively and put on a "racist character" to blow the whole thing so far out of proportion that the heckler's comments would be diffused, and perhaps the heckler would cease.

My feelings is that none of this excuses the behavior, or lends support for this to occur, but I believe we should take all things into consideration, and view this for what it appears to be - - a comedy act that went bad! Some have said that a "good comedian" would have done this or that, but Mr. Richards is not as smooth on stage as Jerry Seinfeld. Yet, most every comic has probably said something inappropriate to an audience heckler at some point in time. It just didn't make the news because it wasn't on tape.

I used to be the manager of a nightclub that hosted comics once per week.  Comedy clubs often get very raw, so I think it is a fine line to say one comedian can say this racial comment or that one, but not those remarks. In the heat of the moment, Mr. Richards crossed the line in performing a comedy act. I don't believe it was an "Andy Kaufman" type stunt, but I also don't believe it will end Mr. Richards' career. If anything, it might help in the long run. Some subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as bad publicity in show business.

In any event, I think Mr. Richards knows he was wrong. He has apologized, and its over and done with. He's not going to change the past, so it is best to change for the future. Time for everyone to move on, and let him be a better person from now on.  If you don't like the comedian, don't pay to watch his act.  If you don't want to be verbally slapped by a comic, don't heckle them while they are trying to do their job and make a living.

Last Fearner


----------



## Kacey (Nov 25, 2006)

At the very least, Michael Richards has made a huge blunder.  Actors of all varieties are, as are politicians, on stage _all the time_.  Their actions are under observation by the papparazzi and the public, whether they are on stage or not.  The fact that this event was videotaped and the video so widely spread only serves to intensify the issue.  Richards was out of control - whether his racist comments were from the heart, or triggered solely by the race of his heckler, only he truly knows.  What is clear is that he crossed a line - and went very far over it - and is contrite about that.  Whether his contrition is for his actions themselves, or only for the furor those actions caused, again, only he knows.

I think that those who have discussed the two-way nature of racism have hit the key point of the issue.  For a non-black person to call a black person "******" is a near-ultimate, if not ultimate, insult; for a black person to call another black person who is a good friend "******" is an affectionate term with the emotional content of "pal".  For a black person to call another black person who is _not _a good friend "******", the responses could vary anywhere in between the two given.  

For many people, "******" is a word with a high emotional index, especially when by a non-black person... the thing is, too many people - many of them those who use it - have forgotten the origin of the word, as a degradation of the word "Negro", a word so politically incorrect that I cannot recall the last time I heard it used, or saw it outside of a novel.  People focus too much on the words, and too little on the reasons they are used; in this case, clearly, the intent was to be negative - but a friend of mine recently told me that should wouldn't allow her 13 year-old daughter to read Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn because the word "******" - which was in common use at the time - is used throughout the novels.  This same friend came up to me and told me she'd heard a new word for Jew... the word was "kike", as pejorative toward Jews as "******" is toward blacks, but she'd never heard it before.  The thing is, the uproar about the word "kike" died out years ago, and the word is no longer in common usage, in part, I think, because many Jews are not visibly Jewish.  Rev. Al Sharpton appeared on the Today Show this morning, suggesting that the word "******" should be banned from usage in any context... a nice thought, but it would, in my opinion, serve to increase its use among people who want to flout authority.  Ignoring the word and it's connotations won't make it go away, but attempting to ban it may well increase its usage.  Only education and empathy - and true colorblindness - can resolve this issue.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 25, 2006)

People should not in any way be using these types of negative terms during the course of their day in day out environement.  However, when your in a comedy club then things do *kind've* change.  Part of comedy is learning to laugh at yourself and others and just have fun with it.  In other words people need to relax, enjoy and have thick skins in a comedy club.  Was Richards over the line *yes*!  However I have seen much worse at a comedy club.  Recently a bride was at her bachelorette party at a comedy club that I frequent once in a while and when the comedian found out the next twenty or so minutes were all about picking on the the bride, her mother and soon to be husband.  It would be enough to put blush to anyone here if they heard what was said.  However, it was *hillarious*.  Richards comments to the Hecklers were not funny.  He really is not much of a stand up comedian or he would have handled it better and differently.
Malicious statments using the words that he used just are not funny.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2006)

Brian brings up an interesting point.

I would bet that this wouldn't be seen as so negative if his comments were actually funny rather then hateful.

Examples I can think of could be drawn from Carlos Mencia, Lisa Lapinelli, or some of the many bits I have seen on Def Comedy Jams. The difference between these folks and this situation is that their comments were funny, and at the very least we knew that they were joking even if we didn't find them funny.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 25, 2006)

Yes, this in response to heckling.  The best response to heckling, I think, is silence.   Ever notice?  When the comedian stops talking, so does everybody else?

It's a shame he stooped to this and I think he knows it.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2006)

shesulsa said:


> Yes, this in response to heckling. The best response to heckling, I think, is silence. Ever notice? When the comedian stops talking, so does everybody else?
> 
> It's a shame he stooped to this and I think he knows it.


 
I think it is better when they are able to play off the heckler and turn it into a spontanious bit. Not everyone can do that, however.

One of my favorites for being able to play off the audience is Paula Poundstone. She has kind of been out of it for awhile, but is recently making a comeback. She is able turn around whatever the audience says. I think that is a talent that takes practice.

Whatever the response is, silence or a snappy comeback, I think the most important thing is to not let it upset you. Losing your cool is how the hecklers win, and as we have seen can lead to drastric results.


----------



## donald (Nov 27, 2006)

It appears that at least 2 of the people involved with the business end of Mr.Richards tirade. Are now looking to sue! I read that the abusees' are asking for Mr.Richards to apologize in front of a Judge. After which they want the Judge to set a "proper" monetary value on his offense. Ahhh, only in America.

1stJohn1:9


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 27, 2006)

donald said:


> It appears that at least 2 of the people involved with the business end of Mr.Richards tirade. Are now looking to sue! I read that the abusees' are asking for Mr.Richards to apologize in front of a Judge. After which they want the Judge to set a "proper" monetary value on his offense. Ahhh, only in America.
> 
> 1stJohn1:9



I wondered if that would happen... I hope they get eaten up in lawyers fees and don't get a dime. Gotta love that 1st Admendment.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 27, 2006)

And thats the bottom line.$$$$.


----------



## zDom (Nov 27, 2006)

Pfft. It's always about the money.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 27, 2006)

donald said:


> It appears that at least 2 of the people involved with the business end of Mr.Richards tirade. Are now looking to sue! I read that the abusees' are asking for Mr.Richards to apologize in front of a Judge. After which they want the Judge to set a "proper" monetary value on his offense. Ahhh, only in America.
> 
> 1stJohn1:9


 
One would think that they wouldn't and shouldn't get a dime, but they are in communist California... so who knows which way the jury would swing.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 27, 2006)

There's no fine line between being funny and being pissed off. Carlin, Pryor, Bruce, Cosby, Williams, Rock, Chappell, Rodriguez, Prinze, Kinneson, Murphy and dozens upon dozens of others have managed to "get angry" on stage and pulled it off successfully because their rants were brilliant insights and observations on human behavior and events. 
Richards raged on and basically lost it. He's a funny guy but he's not a stand up artist. Seinfeld is a stand up artist and a funny guy. Jason Alexander is a funny guy but not a stand up artist, same with Dreyfus. They may have DONE stand up at one time or another but it's not their normal thing. 

A word about Andy Kaufman... he was definitely way ahead of his time with his particular and peculiar brand of humor. But he knew what was funny (people at the time didn't figure him out until later... thus his being "ahead of his time").


----------

