Past Deadline

Just Give Them Money (That's What They Waaaaaaaant, Yeah)

I have to admit to being a little bit confused by this whole lawsuit business over "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan." Specifically, why would 20th Century Fox allow it to come to this for a comedy that's well on its way to passing the $150 million mark in domestic box office alone?

Here they have a blockbuster hit that not a lot of people saw coming. But once it became obvious this was going to be such a smash, here's all it would seemingly have taken to nip the legal machinations in the bud: have someone get out there with a checkbook and write low six-figure sums to those most likely to cry foul over having been misled and feeling humiliated. The frat boys in the motor home could have been bought off with, what, $100,000 apiece, tops, maybe even $50,000. They could have quelled the outrage in that entire Romanian village depicted as Kazakhstan in the opening by giving these people $5,000, $10,000 apiece -- no doubt a huge chunk of change to the villagers.

Anyone deemed to be a possible "schmoe eruption" should have been cut a check so as to prevent this kind of bad publicity, which I have to believe isn't a boon for the film. For less than $1 million total -- maybe even closer to $500,000 -- none of this sees the light of day and everyone walks away with no, or at least far fewer, hard feelings. And the truth is that from all accounts, the filmmakers did hoodwink these people on something of a fraudulent level if indeed they presented release forms promising the film would never be shown in the U.S. and was a mere Kazakh doc.

Am I being overly simplistic here, or is this a publicity fiasco that could easily have been pre-silenced had someone at Fox used some foresight and just a tiny sliver of Rupert Murdoch's abundant cash? Now that the movie is such a hit, it would require a greater monetary investment, but I still have to believe that all of these folks can be paid off -- and should be paid off -- to make this all go away relatively quickly. To have this stuff continue forth in the media is simply really lousy, shortsighted business -- and frankly, just a wee bit insane.

And I'll Bet He Insults Schoolchildren and Kicks Frail Old Ladies Walking Across the Street, Too

As the blogosphere's unofficial chronicler of the neverending Michael Richards Racial Meltdown and National Apology Tour 2006, I find myself unable to stop posting items about this thing that just seems to have a life force of its own. Now, we find that not only isn't Richards black (I have this on good authority), he also doesn't appear to be Jewish, either. Seems some people have been nosing around and -- while Richards claimed to his new crisis management dialogue bender/shaper Howard Rubenstein that he's Jewish -- in fact it appears that neither of his parents are Jews and he never converted to Judaism. Mercy!

A quick assessment of these facts leads us to believe that this makes the man a gentile. There is, in fact, no other possible conclusion, really, despite Rubenstein's assertion to the Associated Press that "it was purely (Richards') interpretation of having adopted Judaism as his religion." Of course, by this logic, I can say I'm Methodist, a brain surgeon and a bobcat, but my claiming it doesn't necessarily make it so.

The difference between Richards' assertion and my own is that I didn't perform a stand-up routine at the Laugh Factory and insult an audience of Methodists, brain surgeons and bobcats (just the surgeons, truth be told), while the comedian and "Seinfeld" alum -- like he needs problems with the Jews now, oy! -- took to a comedy stage and did make anti-Semitic remarks earlier in April before doing the same to African-Americans earlier this month.

And this evidently makes Richards...an anti-Semite as well as a racist! Move over, Mel Gibson. We may just have a second rider on the JewBash Cannonball!

Maybe what Richards meant was that he's "Jew-ish" -- which is to say, "Jew-like," in the same way you might note, "I'll arrive for your party at 8-ish." Perhaps his rationale is that he has the financial security, the miserly bent, the prominent nose and the circumcision of a Jewish male but lacks the actual blood tie. (Don't anyone get offended. I can say this stuff. I'm Jewish. Both parents. I've got the guilt to prove it.) Anyway, if I'm Richards' diplomatically-gifted spokesdude, I take that explanation and run with it. Just sprint like the friggin' wind.

I wonder what Richards' horoscope says for the month of November. Probably something like this: "Don't leave the house. Just don't. And don't talk. Not a single word. Roll yourself up in the fetal position and gently rock back and forth for 4 1/2 weeks until December 1, when it is again safe to emerge from the cave. Ya dig?"

My feeling about Richards and the Jewish thing is a big fat, 'Who cares?'. It's like enough already. Okay, so the guy hates black people and now Jews, too. He could well hate everyone, no doubt himself included. What I don't want is for Richards' Mea Culpa Extravaganza to extend to synagogues and Hanukkah celebrations and then High Holiday gatherings next year ("I'm sorry, I don't really hate you people, I love Jewish people so much I've long been impersonating one, long live tolerance!").

Michael Richards saga, be gone!

Wherever He Is, Charles Schulz Is Probably Smiling -- Or Preparing To Sue For Copyright Infringement (Sigh)

I've always wondered what it would be like to have the Peanuts gang supply the visuals to a music video of "Hey Ya!" by Outkast. Now I know. And it's pretty darn cute, I have to say. I don't even much care that it's three years old, as one reader pointed out to me. Cute is cute. It really is amazing, too, just how much Linus looks like Andre 3000. What's best of all, of course, is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Richards (except for the part where Charlie Brown shouts "N----r!" at Pig Pen).

(Just kidding. He actually shouts, "Motherf----r!").

Anyway...here it is.

Oh Man, You Really Did It This Time, Kramer

Sorry. I know I said no more Michael Richards. But then my friend Andy -- who wrote the "Seinfeld" episode classic "The Opposite" -- sent me this link to an uproarious, sublime, perfect spoof of the Richards fiasco crafted by the people at National Lampoon. It's "Seinfeld: The Lost Episode." And it's so wondrously inspired that it may make people care about the name National Lampoon again. At least, you know, for 4 1/2 minutes or so.

You'll laugh. You'll cry. Actually, no, you won't cry, unless it's from laughing. That, you'll do a lot of.

Talk Is Cheap, Mikey. Don't Be Cheap

My regular blog reader and commenter extraordinaire Theodora makes a great suggestion about Michael Richards: while making his many rounds expressing remorse at having so insulted the African-American community with his enraged meltdown on Nov. 17 at The Laugh Factory comedy club, why not start pledging to donate money to black youth groups that will help underprivileged kids and families? Putting his money where his big mouth is would go a long way toward promoting some of that healing Richards has been so fond of talking about lately. And I've a feeling he can afford it.

Why not start by earmarking any of his personal royalties/residuals from "Seinfeld Season 7" DVD sales to, say, the SEED Foundation, the National Urban League or the NAACP? It's not about Richards trying to buy his way back into the good graces of the African-American community. The truth is he wasn't on its radar to begin with, as "Seinfeld" isn't exactly high on the viewing list of black TV households. This is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson's call for a boycott of the new DVD on Monday isn't likely to have a grave financial impact on the principals.

Nonetheless, it would prove a positive gesture to donate some of his millions to black charities, if for no other reason than money talks...and we're all pretty much aware of what walks.

There. That's all on Richards for the time being. May he find racial reprogramming and peace of mind separate and apart from his whistle-stop apology tour.

Web Randomness: Startraks Photo

The succinct nature of captioning photos for a photo-service site has rarely been so well-employed.

But the somewhat hysterical usage of ALL CAPS in these two, which sat side-by-side at the  great Startraks Photo site, had us bemused, amused and saddened all at the same time.

Who knew it was possible?

We're kinda glad to be back to our regularly scheduled, post-Thanksgiving madness; last week was indigestion-inducing in far more ways than just sedation by tryptophan.

-- Randee Dawn

A Pre-Thanksgiving Examination Of That Whole O.J. Fiasco

I have to admit some lingering disappointment that News Corp. this week decided to dump the HarperCollins book and the two-part Fox TV interview tie-in featuring O.J. Simpson and the outrageously titled joint projects called "If I Did It."

As a friend pointed out, this could well have been transformed into a series of both books and television specials, with Simpson -- as our host -- imagining what it would have been like to commit specific murders from throughout history: Julius Caesar, JFK, the Black Dahlia, Lincoln, the Archduke Ferdinand...the list is really endless.

From what I can gather, it wasn't the fact that Simpson is such a loathsome figure that finally prompted News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch to pull the plug. He seemed reasonably okay with trading the taint of climbing into bed with one of America's most reviled men for the promise of a ratings windfall. He was also fine with the transparent sanctimony of Regan Books publisher Judith Regan in pulling out the "battered woman" card to justify her participation in such a fiasco.

No, what caused Murdoch to blink was simple dissension in his ranks and in the book world. When a couple of dozen Fox affiliates vowed not to air the broadcast, paired with the growing rejection of the tome by bookstore chains, a simmering advertiser boycott and the bashing of the project by Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera over Fox News Channel, it proved more than even the tabloid-loving billionaire could bear.

Left in its wake are a whole lot of questions over the propriety of this thing having been slated in the first place. Shockingly, no one now seems to want to claim credit for the idea, though it's fairly obvious Regan at least pushed things forward.

In hindsight, the notion of an O.J. non-confession confession is less unctuous than it is absurd. From Simpson's point of view, he would be earning a reported $3.5 million -- hidden in various ways to prevent it from being seized to pay off his civil judgment -- to hypothetically reflect on a reprehensible crime that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe he committed, anyway.

It's like the disgraced James Frey and his notorious memoir "A Million Little Pieces" in reverse. Frey's was a work of fiction peddled as one of fact. For Simpson, it was reality presented as novel. In so doing, it would serve merely to perpetuate the lie: this is how it would have happened if I'd done the deed (nudge-nudge, wink-wink).

If we look at this as reflective of the quasi-unscripted fabric that now flows so much of primetime's original offerings -- including comedy -- what News Corp. planned with O.J. makes perfect sense. Most TV that's labeled as "reality" is about as real as "The Flintstones," with scripting and story editors and all variety of stagecraft. The would-be Simpson debacle was simply another example of TV's ongoing rope-a-doping of America.

For his part, Simpson admits this was all about the money but still has a tendency to hold reality at arm's length. He told the Associated Press this week, "This was an opportunity for my kids to get their financial legacy. My kids understand. I made it clear that it's blood money, but it's no different than any of the other writers who did books on this case."

Yeah, except for the fact this one was about the kids' dad discussing how he might have brutally murdered their mother. Otherwise, it's identical. Simpson also emphasized, "Would everybody stop being so naive? Of course I got paid. I spent the money on bills. It's gone." Perhaps that's the real issue here. And it feels particularly galling. O.J. continues to profit from this crime, leaving the rest of us effectively bankrupt.

Revisiting the Michael Richards Controversy

I've spoken to, and received numerous comments from, readers and friends weighing in on the Michael Richards controversy. The polarization of the responses presents further evidence of just how vast is the racial divide in this country, something of which most African Americans no doubt are reminded on a daily basis but that we white folks often forget.

The replies have been pretty much split into three camps:

1. "I've noticed that everyone wants to cut Richards a lot more slack than they cut Mel Gibson -- even though Richards didn't even have the booze excuse!"
2. "Why is it all right for the black people in the crowd at the Laugh Factory to call Richards a 'Cracker' but it isn't okay for him to refer to them as 'Nigger'?"
3. "The man has problems that seem far deeper than a few enraged racial epithets, and at least he tried to apologize immediately on national television."

First, about that apology Monday night on "Late Show with David Letterman": it was positively surreal. Richards, sitting by himself, virtually naked, with nowhere to hide, appeared legitimately bewildered and perplexed, speaking of his own invective-spewing rant as if he were discussing the actions of somebody else. It's clear both on the video shot at the club and during his chilling, disjointed appearance with Letterman that he was experiencing some sort of nervous breakdown. I believe the man is probably less a strict racist than an embittered, confused, distraught, unhinged guy in desperate need of intensive therapy.

Does this excuse the words that left his mouth from that comedy club stage? Hardly. And a single apology doesn't erase their impact. But I also don't think it racially insensitive to observe that perhaps this stemmed more from a larger emotional/psychological snap than simple bigotry. Yes, part of Richards' recovery should include diversity counseling to deduce where this racially-targeted rage came from, if it isn't indeed a lifelong mindset. It isn't about letting him off the hook for such a hateful transgression; it's about the larger issue of his mental state and very public implosion.

Again, this hardly excuses Richards' repeated use of what the polite media likes to call "The N-Word," nor does it dismiss the bigotry behind it. But this is obviously about far more than race. It's about the mental state of a man clearly hanging by an emotional thread and who appeared Monday to be in the throes of a sort of mania -- the kind that can lead to suicidal thoughts.

You simply don't often see television infused with the sort of raw emotion evoked during that interview. Letterman was particularly gentle in his questioning. And Jerry Seinfeld -- who obviously engineered the on-camera purge/apology out of concern for his buddy -- showed himself to be a true friend indeed to Richards. It was clear there was a fatherly element at work in Seinfeld's arranging for this interview, obviously conducted without publicist consultation or pre-planning or image makeover artists. There was nothing concocted or superficial about it. And in that sense, it made for an altogether bracing experience.

It took genuine courage for Richards to go on Letterman at Seinfeld's behest when he was in such a fragile and wounded state. And you got the feeling the man was staring not merely into a camera but squarely at his many demons. He didn't have the alcohol excuse, and he didn't concoct one. It was, refreshingly, about a guy trying to take immediate responsibility for his ugly actions and blaming no one but himself. So no matter what else you want to say about him, he showed some guts.

However, as my longtime journalist/author friend Kevin Allman writes on his indispensible blog, Richards did himself no favors by trying to drag the victims of Hurricane Katrina into his Letterman apology. It again speaks to the lack of preparation and advance consultation with publicity types, which proved commendable but also a bit imprudent.

The fact is, I don't know where this racism came from if we're to believe Richards isn't what he appeared to be on that stage. Obviously, something went haywire in his circuitry while being heckled, perhaps his longstanding and well-known anger at having been forever typecast as "Seinfeld's" Kramer. He very much needs to get over it and move on, use his millions to open a theater, take a year-long sailing trip around the world, come to terms with reality, enjoy his wealth and his life. There are worse things than being known as an iconic character from a revered sitcom and having that memory prevent you from landing other work. You've got to know that 99.999% of the Screen Actors Guild membership would take that deal in a heartbeat.

So, to finally answer the issues in order:

1. If we're cutting Richards more slack than we did Mel Gibson, maybe it's because he isn't hiding behind publicists and statements and put his face out there front and center in the sort of vulnerable fashion that Gibson never has and never will.
2. It isn't all right for African Americans to refer to white people as "Crackers." But under the chaotic circumstances, it was understandable because the dialogue had grown so horribly ugly due to Richards' deplorable conduct.
3. If Gibson deserves another chance, Richards certainly does, too. But given the already-tenuous state of his career, I fear he may never get it.

Hey! Where's Big Bird? Oh...Count, Is This Your Doing?

A happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, from your friends at Past Deadline.

A Remorseful and Seemingly Shellshocked Michael Richards Apologizes On 'Letterman' Tonight Via Satellite

It just so happens that Jerry Seinfeld was slated to appear on "Late Show with David Letterman" tonight to hawk the release of the Season 7 DVD of "Seinfeld." And considering the Michael Richards racial-epithet-spewing brouhaha that exploded today, the timing could not have been more fortuitous for Seinfeld's series co-star and longtime friend, who makes an appearance from Los Angeles via satellite during Seinfeld's already-scheduled guest stint. Reported to be near tears, Richards utters a heartfelt and achingly sincere apology for his behavior that was captured on tape. It airs tonight at 11:35 p.m. on CBS.

Interviewed by Letterman, Richards is said to look haggard and forlorn and seems genuinely devastated by the fallout from his Friday night stand-up gig at The Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. He apparently makes the point that he is not a racist and was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol  at the time (hallelujah to that) but that he obviously has some significant anger issues to work out. Uh, yeah.

UPDATE: In case you can't, or couldn't, watch Richards' interview on Letterman, here's a partial transcript. It speaks to the deep level of bitterness and befuddlement that gripped, and perhaps continues to grip, this once wildly popular performer. Simply reading these words leaves me feeling more sorry for him than any need to further castigate a man who clearly has lost his way.

Letterman: “Why don’t you explain exactly what happened for the folks who may not know.”

Richards: “I lost my temper on stage. I was at a comedy club trying to do my act and I got heckled and I took it badly and went into a rage and said some pretty nasty things to some Afro-Americans, a lot of trash talk, and uh…”

Letterman: “And you were actually being heckled or were they just talking and disturbing the act?”

Richards: “That was going on too.”

(Later)

Richards: “…You know, I’m really busted up over this and I’m very, very sorry to those people in the audience, the Blacks, the Hispanics, Whites – everyone that was there that took the brunt of that anger and hate and rage and how it came through, and I’m concerned about more hate and more rage and more anger coming through, not just towards me but towards a black/white conflict. There’s a great deal of disturbance in this country and how Blacks feel about what happened (with) Katrina, and, you know, many of the comics, many of the performers are in Las Vegas and New Orleans trying to raise money for what happened there, and for this to happen, for me to be in a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, you know, I’m deeply, deeply sorry. And I’ll get to the force field of this hostility, why it’s there, why the rage is in any of us, why the trash takes place, whether or not it’s between me and a couple of hecklers in the audience or between this country and another nation, the rage..."

Letterman: “But Michael, let me interrupt here for a second and ask a question about had the people doing the heckling or the people who were not paying attention, had they been white or Caucasian or any other race, what would have been the nature of your response then?”

Richards: “It may have happened. It may have happened. You know, I’m a performer. I push the envelope, I work in a very uncontrolled manner onstage. I do a lot of free association, it’s spontaneous, I go into character.  I don’t know, in view of the situation and the act going where it was going, I don’t know the rage did go all over the place. It went to everybody in the room. But you can’t – you know it’s, I don’t – I know people could, blacks could feel – I’m not a racist, that’s what so insane about this, and yet it’s said, it comes through, it fires out of me and even now, in the passion that’s here as I confront myself.”