I keep thinking about how, were it not for Bob Z. telling so many of "de punches" of what AK set up, I would really know veddy
little of what motivated him.
(Actually, veddy little of him at all!)
It is important, I think, to keep things like that in mind when I'm driving myself crazy about not being able to answer "why"
Mister Andy did this or that (ie lie
about his age...)
Most people are satisfied with the answer of "Why did Mister Andy do andything?" That answer doesn't ~really~ do it for me,
because I have come to learn that
there is quite a bit of method to his particular madness; there is a logical progression of thought, and conclusions that can be
drawn through observation, once the
right questions occur. He ~wants~ something from us, there is an objective here.
But when I think of what the time was like between the daze of AK's life, and the time of Bob's bio and MOTM, I realize that...de
punch of almost ~everything~ he
did was secret: ie, Jerry Lawler, Tony Clifton, etc.
Mister Andy died thinking that no one would know andything about andything, and wonder forever, I believe. (Unless he set the
whole thing up with Bob Z, that
is.)
--------------------
It took me a while to lead up to what's on my mind, but here it is:
Is it better that Bob Z. "revealed" Andy Kaufman, and brought him to the attention of people like ~me~, who would never have
known of him otherwise?
Or...
Did Bob et. al. "taint" the Art of Mister Andy by revealing de punches which were never meant to be revealed?
>>Most people are satisfied with the answer of "Why did Mister Andy do andything?" That answer doesn't ~really~ do it for me, because I have come to learn that there is quite a bit of method to his particular madness; there is a logical progression of thought, and conclusions that can be drawn through observation, once the
right questions occur. He ~wants~ something from us, there is an objective here.<<
Abso-friggin-lutely! I couldn’t agree more, and I too, find the ‘answer’ "Why did Mister Andy do andything?" highly inadequate. There was a definite method to his madness. Everything he did was measured, planned, practiced, and designed to elicit a response. A particular response. And if he didn’t get that response, he felt that he had failed, and just kept working the material until he did get the desired response. Andy was meticulous. Perhaps that point escapes many. But I find it an extremely compelling part of what it was that made Andy “Andy.” Maybe that’s the key difference between why many are able to dismiss his work so easily, and others (of us) are mesmerized.
>>Is it better that Bob Z. "revealed" Andy Kaufman, and brought him to the attention of people like ~me~, who would never have known of him otherwise?<<
I think so. I came to know, love, and deeply appreciate AK first because of that song with all the “Yeah’s” in it. I loved the song (REM’s MotM) so much that I began to even sing it at karaoke joints. But I then HAD to know what it was REALLY about, and why in the world Michael Stipe would write a song about this guy. So I picked up Zmuda’s book and….well, my life has never been the same. I could not BELIEVE that one guy could be so subtle, so imaginative, so driven, so brilliant, AND so fearless. Or that anyone could understand his audience so well that he could manipulate them AT WILL. Zmuda peeled the scales from my eyes.
Or...
>>Did Bob et. al. "taint" the Art of Mister Andy by revealing de punches which were never meant to be revealed?<<
To appreciate anything—art, wine, film, literature, andything at all (oops, you’ve got me doing it,) you’ve got to understand it. Knowledge begets understanding begets deep appreciation. And in some of our cases, depth of understanding begets obsession, which starts the cycle over again. I will always be grateful to Zmuda, self serving as he may be. He opened my eyes to a world I hadn’t realized existed.
" Knowledge begets understanding begets
deep appreciation. And in some of our cases, depth of understanding begets obsession, which starts the cycle over again."
------------------
I really like this part of your answer, which basically settles the problem for me. I now feel much better about the whole thing, and less like I'm "buying into" a "selling out" of Mister Andy.
Question: The "I Got A Call From A Wrong Number Theme"
by Holly
Andybody know what this is? Or why Mister Andy keeps making reference to it?
I have read most of "Poetry and Stories", not "Huey Williams", "God", or certain other writings I have of his yet - so I dunno
what's going on in those other books,
but...
...running all throughout "Poetry And Stories" is this motif of "somebody called me in the middle of the night and it was a wrong
number, but she was a cool chick,
and we talked all night, and I wanted to call her, but she had my numbers and I didn't have hers, and so I waited for her to call
back (etc. etc. etc.)" This wrong
number thing comes up frequently.
Then, there it is at the end of "Blassie" - yet another reference to being called by a wrong number, and staying on the line for
ten hours.
-------------------
Would some of you please offer up hypotheses on the topic of: to what does this theme make reference, why is it repeated so
often in AK's work, and what does he
want us to "get" from it (aside from noticing it's a common motif that runs through his work, and asking ourselves what it
means)?
Thanks - it's driving me crazy.
Oh, wait, I'm already crazy - strike that last remark from the record, please. *_~
I just finished watching "Heartbeeps", which is, arguably, worse than "Fishtar" (though much shorter). I loved seeing Mister Andy, don't get me wrong - it's just
that it's difficult for him or the lovely Ms. Peters to do any ~real~ acting underneath the masks, and then...the plot is so thin, and they really
sttttrrrreeeeettttccccchhhh to get that hour and twenty minutes or so...
Another flaw is that it is extremely difficult to get an audience emotionally involved with a flick with an extremely little amount of emotion in it. We are watching
them slowly and clumsily discover emotion, and, if the plot held up, it could be a veddy strong thing intellectually; I am thinking of the treatment Rod Serling might
have given the same idea of sentient robots learning about emotion. However, with the storyline being so weak, it's hard for the average theatergoer to connect at
most levels, in my humble but oft-spoke opinion.
------------------
So, here's what I want to know:
Why ~on earth~ did they allow themselves the vanity of a "cliffhanger" type ending? Did they really, possibly even consider making a "Heartbeeps 2"?
A-hahahahahahaha!
Bonus Question: Andybody else here notice John Williams ripping off his own "Star Wars" theme in the score?
it starts at about entry #32 and ends here at the top. the place for name is the first letter, followed by the message title, followed by message text. it starts out
"the-point-to-this-message-is-Andy"
I'm glad someone is watching - and thanks for answering.
As for the getting an "audience emotionally involved with an extremely little amount of emotion in it"...I must confess that I'm somewhat confused by your semantics. I'm not sure where the lack of emotion lies, with the "audience" or with the "performers" (?) - or to what you refer, exactly. But I have a number of AK related questions, which I will post. Maybe someone who is a "watcher" will take an interest and/or make an emotional investment.