Didnt it seem like Michael Richards was just making stuff up as he was talking to Jerry?
A homeless master chessplayer.
A naked tribe in the jungle who recognized him because they had tv and cable???? (wtf??)
Ive talked to many fabricators in my life, and this was pretty transparent.
No, I believe both stories. There are autistic men who play chess obsessively and certainly some are homeless because they cannot function normally in other ways.
Here is a story about one autistic player - he's not homeless though is a champion: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57380913-10391709/a-chess-prodi gy-explains-how-his-mind-works/.
Also google Tom Murphy.
Secondly, in third-world countries like Borneo or whatever, they don't have their own TV and film industry to speak of. So TV is all syndicated from the most popular shows in the world.
I thought he was very sincere too and in pain over his standup meltdown, and how he made such a fool of himself. You can see how little he has worked since then so I don't know if he will ever recover.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Higgins was right.
http://www.facebook.com/BringZackBack
Agreed about his sincerity........I felt it was genuine.
share"Agreed about his sincerity........I felt it was genuine."
If it was fake, it wouldn't have been sincerity. "Fake sincerity" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. It's like "dry wet". Can't exist.
I always wondered, why didn't he offer the homeless guy some MONEY to play him again? Are you kidding? You really wanted to play him, you worked on one of the most successful and well-known TV comedies in the world for nine years (so you have an enormous amount of moolah), and you didn't even offer him anything - just as a token of gratitude for letting you play with him for the two games?
The story seemed fake, because he seemed to so instantly have answer to everything. Just listen to his speech about "maybe that's why". Sounded scripted.
I don't have any opinion about Richards, except that his Kramer-character was really funny and fun to watch. But something about his storytelling seemed a little weird.
And who wouldn't be genuinely in pain after having been through what he had? What's not to be sincere about? Why would he fake pain?
The question is; what was the -reason- for the pain.. was it because he did something wrong (which wasn't necessarily the case, but I haven't researched it much, so I don't have much to comment about it other than we have freedom of speech, and it should be treasured above everything, and it's currently not)..
.. or was it because of the -reaction- from his actions, that made him feel bad?
I am not saying he is a racist or that he isn't - I don't know the guy, I can't make statements about him. I can only ask questions..
But why didn't he say: "Listen, if you play me 5 more times, I will pay you 8000 dollars per game - how's that?"
It just always seems odd that celebrities have such wild stories to tell about their lives.. if I had to tell stories about my life, they would all be like:
".. and then I walked on asphalt, carrying groceries. I saw a man walk towards me. He didn't say anything, and just kept walking, as did I. Soon I forgot about the whole thing."
But Richards was in wild jungles being spotted and played chess with amazing homeless savants!
"I always wondered, why didn't he offer the homeless guy some MONEY to play him again?"
Maybe it just didn't occur to him at the time, or maybe he did, but left it out of the story.
" '...and then I walked on asphalt, carrying groceries. I saw a man walk towards me. He didn't say anything, and just kept walking, as did I. Soon I forgot about the whole thing.' "
Dude, I would read that book!
While the autistic chess player is real, it doesn't mean that Michael Richards didn't make up the story involving himself. The story certainly didn't seem real as it was told.
I agree with the original post. The part where Richards was stopping at Sugar Ray Leonard's house and claimed to know him personally and later Jerry got him to admit he was lying lends credence that the other stories were also lies.
"The part where Richards was stopping at Sugar Ray Leonard's house and claimed to know him personally and later Jerry got him to admit he was lying lends credence that the other stories were also lies."
His stories aren't "lies", they're tall tales, perhaps with a grain of truth at the center but embellished and exaggerated to make them more entertaining. That's his job, as a comedian, and he does it well.
Comedians and actors are entertainers, they perform, sometimes as characters, sometimes as themselves, but when they're "on" whether it be infront of a camera or an audience, it's a performance.
I do not believe that the stories were made up, but I do believe that they were a bit "exaggerated" if you will for the sake of entertainment. They all do this, they're comedians. Every talk show appearance is rehearsed and usually pretermined.
When a comedian does a bit on stage, it can be wildly exaggerated, or it can be almost comletely made up. For example many comedians say something like "I was just in a store the other day..." and of course they've been doing the bit for years, so they were not at the store the "other day" but maybe five years ago.
So Michael Richards probably did meet a homeless idiot savant, but maybe he did add on some parts, maybe he did exaggerate, but it made the story better, it was funny and captivating.
Same thing with the jungle bit. Maybe he wasn't in a "jungle" but perhaps a little village, and maybe the local people didn't live in huts, maybe they had houses there, and they probably did recognize him from the show, after all it's one of the top syndicated shows worldwide, just maybe he didn't physically see a cable going to a hut etc.
So in essence, he wasn't lieing, just making the stories better and more entertaining.
"Every talk show appearance is rehearsed and usually pretermined."
Thinking this show is like other talk shows is a mistake. It is very relaxed and casual with people going into topics wherever the conversation leads. The thing to remember though, is that it is edited down to less than 20 minutes from a few hours of driving and chatting. There would certainly be some boring parts with lulls in the conversation otherwise.
They left quite a lull in the Tina Fey episode... during a driving scene with the camera on the hood, capturing both of them close up... Seemed like a full minute!
share
I haven't had a chance to see the Tina Fey episode yet, but you get the point - the show is shaved down from at least a full afternoon of filming to about 12-20 minutes. Besides, sometimes a gap of silence serves a purpose.
Once I see the episode I'll be looking for the lull you mentioned.
I've never seen Tina fey when she was not"on" as someone else put it....
She was very relaxed and natural...and even admitted at least one or two personal things.
It's not a hilarious show, but a little insight to rich people's lives.
Hey Richard,
I've checked out the episode and have no idea where you saw a lull. All I saw was a pretty steady conversation.
Regardless, you are correct that it is not necessarily hilarious. There have been few points through the series where I've genuinely laughed, but that doesn't mean it's not enjoyable to watch. But if you like comedians, especially at ease with one another as friends, than you might like this show. Or I guess you can also watch it simply for the cars.
I agree.. just a day in the life, seeing people in situations we don't normally get to see.. Interesting..
It was a short "lull" while they were in the car..not really that long... they were just looking out the window, Jerry focused on driving, and Tina looking out..
probably only about 20-30 seconds.. maybe not qualified as a "lull"... but it was noticeable.. not a bad thing..At the time I thought it was interesting, that's all.
I thought Richards was sweet and vulnerable. If he embellished here and there I don't care.
There was a touching moment where he revealed his ongoing pain over that episode and Seinfeld said it was time to put down that bag. Seinfeld stood by him and showed real affection. Made Seinfeld a nice guy rather than just a rich funny man.
I agree! I also thought both of them were very sweet with the fans after their coffee.
shareI visited Bali in 2012 and spent 3 days in Ubud, a small town in the heart of the island. It's a funky little place, with little neighborhoods dripping with that funky hindu-originated baroque stone carving. Folks had telephones, TV, a modern school system... really, all the amenities. There may be a few folks somewhere who are living in "primitive" conditions (such as Michael seems to hint at), but it's hard to imagine.
BTW, Ubud has a *fantastic* art museum; the Neka. Be sure to check it out if you go there.
--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield
I strongly doubt that Micheal Richards was ever a grand master level chess player, and if he was, it is almost impossible to be beaten so quickly. But it did make for a good story. I believe the jungle story however.
--
"Surrender Dorothy!"
[deleted]
At the end he has more "material". They are stories he plans to use in his career. Of course they are not true.
shareRemember that his friend said the guy was a "savant". You probably should look up that word in a dictionary. It will explain all.
share
He certainly DID lie in that episode, it seems.
He said he knows Sugar, but he doesn't - he admitted as much later on. So, he already showed a habit of lying, that he can't be trusted, and he has to be later asked: "Was that true?", to get the truth out of him.
Besides, why would Jerry even have the habit of asking him that? (Why did he think to ask - because he is used to being lied to by Richards? And if he hadn't asked, would Richards ever have confessed?)
Perhaps he knows that Richards is some kind of compulsive liar, who knows.
So, when we are SHOWN that Richards certainly has no problem in lying to his good (best?) friend and the whole TV audience, just like it's nothing - I take his following peculiar and overly-wild, out-of-the-ordinary stories with a small piece of some kind of sodium chloride substance.
I mean, he IS a comedian.
Sounds like you just don't like him and are trolling on here.
shareThey are comedians so they are all exaggerating real stories.
Like the 'is this a tweet' comment.
ofc he knows its not a tweet.
or what about that woman 'who honestly I dont know' getting all frustreted about the menu card.
or Larry David with the 'I dont know what you are doing with this show' ..
they know what kinda comedy works and they go with it
its probably 60% honesty 40% entertainment.
if they say they went to a party with 100 people.. imagine there being 60 ;)
thats how I see it.
Ned Charles:
THE REASON I DON'T LIKE BLACK RAPPERS
They don't rap about my life.